Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study
Volovici, Victor; Pisică, Dana; Gravesteijn, Benjamin; Dirven, Clemens M. F.; Steyerberg, Ewout W.; Ercole, Ari; Stocchetti, Nino; Nelson, David; Menon, David K; Citerio, Giuseppe; Van Der Jagt, Mathieu; Maas, Andrew I. R.; Haitsma, Iain K.; Lingsma, Hester F.; Vik, Anne; Skandsen, Toril; Andelic, Nada; Røise, Olav; Helseth, Eirik; Andreassen, Lasse; Anke, Audny Gabriele Wagner; Røe, Cecilie
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3051386Utgivelsesdato
2022Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Originalversjon
10.1007/s00701-022-05257-zSammendrag
Objective
To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)–driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)–driven treatment.
Methods
The CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with “center” as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome.
Results
A total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36–1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34–2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs.
Conclusion
We found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor–guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group.