Intracranial pressure monitoring and treatment practices in severe traumatic brain injury between low-and middle-income countries and high-income countries: Data or dogma?

Abstract

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring forms the cornerstone of most severe TBI (sTBI) management guidelines, yet treatment practices vary between high income countries (HIC) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to find the reasons for variation in ICP monitoring and treatment practices between neurosurgeons in low- and high-income countries.

Methods: We developed a 34-item anonymous survey questionnaire on ICP monitoring and treatments, which was emailed to neurosurgeons of various neurosurgical societies (Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America) who manage TBI.

Results: One hundred and six respondents from 23 countries completed the questionnaire. Sixty-nine were from Africa, 16 were from North America, 12 were from Western Europe, and 8 were from Asia. About 48.72% of respondents from LMICs versus 96.43% from HICs have had training on ICP use. Among practitioners who monitor ICP invasively in <50% of patients that need it, 41.6% and 37.5% from LMIC cited availability and cost as the major constraints, versus 3.3% and 6.67%, respectively, in HIC. Only 7 (8.97%) from LMIC follow Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines all the time compared to 17.86% from HIC. When asked about their knowledge of randomized controlled trial(RCT), 78.57% of respondents from HIC versus 11.54% from LMIC knew about RCTs that tested the role of ICP monitoring in sTBI.

Conclusion: Significant differences exist in ICP monitoring and treatment in patients with sTBI between high and LMICs. Cost and availability are the main determinants of ICP monitor usage. Practice pattern among the respondents was not completely supported by evidence.