Publication Date
12-1-2024
Journal
Neurocritical Care
DOI
10.1007/s12028-024-02008-z
PMID
38811514
PMCID
PMC11599332
PubMedCentral® Posted Date
5-29-2024
PubMedCentral® Full Text Version
Post-print
Published Open-Access
yes
Keywords
Humans, Intracranial Pressure, Critical Care, Intracranial Hypertension, Neurophysiological Monitoring, Monitoring, Physiologic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Developing Countries, Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Brain Injuries, Cerebral perfusion pressure, Individualized care, Intracranial pressure, Intracranial pressure waveform, Intracranial compliance, Neurocritical care
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous trials have addressed intracranial pressure (ICP) management in neurocritical care. However, identifying its harmful thresholds and controlling ICP remain challenging in terms of improving outcomes. Evidence suggests that an individualized approach is necessary for establishing tolerance limits for ICP, incorporating factors such as ICP waveform (ICPW) or pulse morphology along with additional data provided by other invasive (e.g., brain oximetry) and noninvasive monitoring (NIM) methods (e.g., transcranial Doppler, optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasound, and pupillometry). This study aims to assess current ICP monitoring practices among experienced clinicians and explore whether guidelines should incorporate ancillary parameters from NIM and ICPW in future updates.
METHODS: We conducted a survey among experienced professionals involved in researching and managing patients with severe injury across low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). We sought their insights on ICP monitoring, particularly focusing on the impact of NIM and ICPW in various clinical scenarios.
RESULTS: From October to December 2023, 109 professionals from the Americas and Europe participated in the survey, evenly distributed between LMIC and HIC. When ICP ranged from 22 to 25 mm Hg, 62.3% of respondents were open to considering additional information, such as ICPW and other monitoring techniques, before adjusting therapy intensity levels. Moreover, 77% of respondents were inclined to reassess patients with ICP in the 18-22 mm Hg range, potentially escalating therapy intensity levels with the support of ICPW and NIM. Differences emerged between LMIC and HIC participants, with more LMIC respondents preferring arterial blood pressure transducer leveling at the heart and endorsing the use of NIM techniques and ICPW as ancillary information.
CONCLUSIONS: Experienced clinicians tend to personalize ICP management, emphasizing the importance of considering various monitoring techniques. ICPW and noninvasive techniques, particularly in LMIC settings, warrant further exploration and could potentially enhance individualized patient care. The study suggests updating guidelines to include these additional components for a more personalized approach to ICP management.
Comments
Associated Data