Ultrasound non-invasive measurement of intracranial pressure in neurointensive care: A prospective observational study

170Citations
Citations of this article
302Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The invasive nature of the current methods for monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) has prevented their use in many clinical situations. Several attempts have been made to develop methods to monitor ICP non-invasively. The aim of this study is to assess the relationship between ultrasound-based non-invasive ICP (nICP) and invasive ICP measurement in neurocritical care patients. Methods and findings: This was a prospective, single-cohort observational study of patients admitted to a tertiary neurocritical care unit. Patients with brain injury requiring invasive ICP monitoring were considered for inclusion. nICP was assessed using optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), venous transcranial Doppler (vTCD) of straight sinus systolic flow velocity (FVsv), and methods derived from arterial transcranial Doppler (aTCD) on the middle cerebral artery (MCA): MCA pulsatility index (PIa) and an estimator based on diastolic flow velocity (FVd). A total of 445 ultrasound examinations from 64 patients performed from 1 January to 1 November 2016 were included. The median age of the patients was 53 years (range 37–64). Median Glasgow Coma Scale at admission was 7 (range 3–14), and median Glasgow Outcome Scale was 3 (range 1–5). The mortality rate was 20%. ONSD and FVsvdemonstrated the strongest correlation with ICP (R = 0.76 for ONSD versus ICP; R = 0.72 for FVsvversus ICP), whereas PIaand the estimator based on FVddid not correlate with ICP significantly. Combining the 2 strongest nICP predictors (ONSD and FVsv) resulted in an even stronger correlation with ICP (R = 0.80). The ability to detect intracranial hypertension (ICP ≥ 20 mm Hg) was highest for ONSD (area under the curve [AUC] 0.91, 95% CI 0.88–0.95). The combination of ONSD and FVsvmethods showed a statistically significant improvement of AUC values compared with the ONSD method alone (0.93, 95% CI 0.90–0.97, p = 0.01). Major limitations are the heterogeneity and small number of patients included in this study, the need for specialised training to perform and interpret the ultrasound tests, and the variability in performance among different ultrasound operators. Conclusions: Of the studied ultrasound nICP methods, ONSD is the best estimator of ICP. The novel combination of ONSD ultrasonography and vTCD of the straight sinus is a promising and easily available technique for identifying critically ill patients with intracranial hypertension.

References Powered by Scopus

Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4

58556Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves

8747Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association

2750Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Optic nerve sheath diameter measured sonographically as non-invasive estimator of intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

266Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Highly Sensitive Capacitive Pressure Sensors over a Wide Pressure Range Enabled by the Hybrid Responses of a Highly Porous Nanocomposite

265Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Brain ultrasonography: methodology, basic and advanced principles and clinical applications. A narrative review

151Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Robba, C., Cardim, D., Tajsic, T., Pietersen, J., Bulman, M., Donnelly, J., … Czosnyka, M. (2017). Ultrasound non-invasive measurement of intracranial pressure in neurointensive care: A prospective observational study. PLoS Medicine, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002356

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 110

66%

Researcher 32

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 19

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 117

74%

Neuroscience 19

12%

Engineering 12

8%

Nursing and Health Professions 10

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 2
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 21

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free