Suppr超能文献

弥漫性轴索损伤(DAI)与颅内压(ICP)升高无关。

Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is not associated with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP).

作者信息

Lee T T, Galarza M, Villanueva P A

机构信息

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Florida, USA.

出版信息

Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1998;140(1):41-6. doi: 10.1007/s007010050055.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Traditionally, intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has been utilized in all patients with severe head injury (Glasgow coma score of 3-8). Ventriculostomy placement, however, does carry a 4 to 10 percent complication rate consisting mostly of hematoma and infection. The authors propose that a subgroup of patients presenting with severe head trauma and diffuse axonal injury without associated mass lesion, do not need ICP monitoring. Additionally, the monitoring data from ICP, MAP, and CPP for a comparison severe head injury group, and subgroups of DAI would be presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six patients sustaining blunt head trauma and fitting our strict clinical and radiographic diagnosis of DAI were enrolled in our study. Inclusion criteria were severe head injury patients who did not regain consciousness after the initial impact, and whose CT scan demonstrated characteristic punctate hemorrhages of < 10 mm diameter at the greywhite junction, basal ganglia, corpus callosum, upper brainstem, or a combination of the above. Patients with significant mass lesions and documented anoxia were excluded. Their intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) were compared to a control group of 36 consecutive patients with severe non-penetrating non-operative head injury, using the Analysis for Variance method.

RESULTS

Eighteen (50.0%), six (16.7%), and twelve (33.3%) patients had types I, II, and III DAI, respectively. The admission Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was higher for types I and II than for type III DAI. ICP was monitored from 23 to 165 hours, with a mean ICP for 36 patients of 11.70 mmHg (SEM = 0.75) and a range from 4.3 to 17.3 mmHg. Of all ICP recordings, of which 89.7%, (2421/2698) were < or = 20 mmHg. Average mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 96.08 mmHg (SEM = 1.69), and 94.6% (2038/2154) of all MAP readings were greater than 80 mmHg. Average cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) was 85.16 mmHg (SEM = 1.68), and 90.1% (1941/2154) of all CPP readings were greater than 70 mmHg. This is compared to the control group mean ICP, MAP, and CPP of 16.84 mmHg (p = 0.000021), 92.80 mmHg (p = 0.18), and 76.49 mmHg (p = 0.0012). No treatment for sustained elevated ICP > 20 mmHg was needed for DAI patients except in two; one with extensive intraventricular and subarachnoid hemorrhage who developed communicating hydrocephalus, and another with ventriculitis requiring intrathecal and intravenous antibiotic treatments. Two complications, one from a catheter tract hematoma, and another with Staph epidermidis ventriculitis, were encountered. All patients, except type III DAI, generally demonstrated marked clinical improvement with time. The outcome, as measured by Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) was similarly better with types I and II than type III DAI.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that ICP elevation in DAI patients without associated mass lesions is not as prevalent as other severe head injured patients, therefore ICP monitoring may not be as critical. The presence of an ICP monitoring device may contribute to increased morbidity. Of key importance, however, is an accurate clinical history and interpretation of the CT scan.

摘要

目的

传统上,颅内压(ICP)监测已应用于所有重度颅脑损伤患者(格拉斯哥昏迷评分3 - 8分)。然而,脑室造瘘术确实存在4%至10%的并发症发生率,主要包括血肿和感染。作者提出,对于伴有弥漫性轴索损伤且无相关占位性病变的重度颅脑创伤患者亚组,无需进行ICP监测。此外,还将展示重度颅脑损伤组以及弥漫性轴索损伤亚组的ICP、平均动脉压(MAP)和脑灌注压(CPP)的监测数据。

材料与方法

36例遭受钝性颅脑创伤且符合我们严格的弥漫性轴索损伤临床和影像学诊断标准的患者纳入本研究。纳入标准为重度颅脑损伤患者,初始撞击后未恢复意识,且其CT扫描显示在灰白质交界、基底节、胼胝体、脑桥上部有特征性直径<10mm的点状出血,或上述部位的组合。有明显占位性病变和有记录的缺氧患者被排除。使用方差分析方法,将他们的颅内压(ICP)和脑灌注压(CPP)与36例连续的重度非穿透性非手术颅脑损伤对照组患者进行比较。

结果

分别有18例(50.0%)、6例(16.7%)和12例(33.3%)患者为I型、II型和III型弥漫性轴索损伤。I型和II型弥漫性轴索损伤患者的入院格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)高于III型。ICP监测时间为23至165小时,36例患者的平均ICP为11.70 mmHg(标准误 = 0.75),范围为4.3至17.3 mmHg。在所有ICP记录中,89.7%(2421/2698)≤20 mmHg。平均平均动脉压(MAP)为96.08 mmHg(标准误 = 1.69),所有MAP读数的94.6%(2038/2154)大于80 mmHg。平均脑灌注压(CPP)为85.16 mmHg(标准误 = 1.68),所有CPP读数的90.1%(1941/2154)大于70 mmHg。与之相比,对照组的平均ICP、MAP和CPP分别为16.84 mmHg(p = 0.000021)、92.80 mmHg(p = 0.18)和76.49 mmHg(p = 0.0012)。除2例弥漫性轴索损伤患者外,无需对持续ICP>20 mmHg进行治疗;1例有广泛脑室和蛛网膜下腔出血并发展为交通性脑积水,另1例有脑室炎需要鞘内和静脉抗生素治疗。遇到2例并发症,1例为导管通道血肿,另1例为表皮葡萄球菌脑室炎。除III型弥漫性轴索损伤患者外,所有患者一般随时间推移临床症状有明显改善。以格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)和格拉斯哥预后评分(GOS)衡量,I型和II型弥漫性轴索损伤患者的预后同样优于III型。

结论

作者得出结论,无相关占位性病变的弥漫性轴索损伤患者中ICP升高不如其他重度颅脑损伤患者普遍,因此ICP监测可能并非至关重要。ICP监测设备的存在可能会增加发病率。然而,至关重要的是准确的临床病史和对CT扫描的解读。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验