Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37636334›Full record

ArticleNeurotrauma reports2023

Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Treatment Thresholds in Acute Neural Injury: A Narrative Review of the Historical Achievements, Current State, and Future Perspectives.

Kevin Y Stein, Logan Froese, Alwyn Gomez, Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi, Nuray Vakitbilir, Younis Ibrahim, Frederick A Zeiler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Kevin Y SteinBiomedical Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Logan FroeseBiomedical Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Alwyn GomezSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Amanjyot Singh SainbhiBiomedical Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Nuray VakitbilirBiomedical Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Younis IbrahimSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Frederick A ZeilerBiomedical Engineering, Price Faculty of Engineering, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CAKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its introduction in the 1960s, intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has become an indispensable tool in neurocritical care practice and a key component of the management of moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The primary utility of ICP monitoring is to guide therapeutic interventions aimed at maintaining physiological ICP and preventing intracranial hypertension. The rationale for such ICP maintenance is to prevent secondary brain injury arising from brain herniation and inadequate cerebral blood flow. There exists a large body of evidence indicating that elevated ICP is associated with mortality and that aggressive ICP control protocols improve outcomes in severe TBI patients. Therefore, current management guidelines recommend a cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target range of 60-70 mm Hg and an ICP threshold of >20 or >22 mm Hg, beyond which therapeutic intervention should be initiated. Though our ability to achieve these thresholds has drastically improved over the past decades, there has been little to no change in the mortality and morbidity associated with moderate-severe TBI. This is a result of the "one treatment fits all" dogma of current guideline-based care that fails to take individual phenotype into account. The way forward in moderate-severe TBI care is through the development of continuously derived individualized ICP thresholds. This narrative review covers the topic of ICP monitoring in TBI care, including historical context/achievements, current monitoring technologies and indications, treatment methods, associations with patient outcome and multi-modal cerebral physiology, present controversies surrounding treatment thresholds, and future perspectives on personalized approaches to ICP-directed therapy.

Indexed as

acute traumatic neural injuryICP monitoringICP thresholdsTBI

Identifiers

PMID37636334
PMCPMC10457629
OpenAlexW4385796113

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.