Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study.
Authors
Pisică, Dana
Gravesteijn, Benjamin Y
Dirven, Clemens MF
Steyerberg, Ewout W
Stocchetti, Nino
Nelson, David
Menon, David K
Citerio, Giuseppe
van der Jagt, Mathieu
Maas, Andrew IR
Haitsma, Iain K
Lingsma, Hester F
CENTER-TBI investigators, participants for the ICU stratum
Publication Date
2022-07Journal Title
Acta Neurochir (Wien)
ISSN
0001-6268
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Volume
164
Issue
7
Pages
1693-1705
Language
en
Type
Article
This Version
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Volovici, V., Pisică, D., Gravesteijn, B. Y., Dirven, C. M., Steyerberg, E. W., Ercole, A., Stocchetti, N., et al. (2022). Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study.. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 164 (7), 1693-1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05257-z
Description
Funder: FP7 Ideas: European Research Council; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011199; Grant(s): 602150
Funder: ZNS - Hannelore Kohl Stiftung; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007731
Funder: Integra LifeSciences; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009006
Abstract
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).
Keywords
Original Article - Brain trauma, Brain trauma, External ventricular devices, Intraparenchymal monitors, Intracranial pressure monitoring, Severe TBI, Traumatic brain injury, CENTER-TBI, Intracranial hypertension, EVD, ICP
Sponsorship
European Commission (602150)
Identifiers
s00701-022-05257-z, 5257
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05257-z
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/338524
Rights
Licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk