Cargando…
Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9233652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35648213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05257-z |
Sumario: | 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. PROTOCOL: The core study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00701-022-05257-z. |
---|