Intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with geriatric trauma may not improve outcome but is associated with increases in resource utilization.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open Pub Date : 2025-03-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2024-001644
Bardiya Zangbar, Aryan Rafieezadeh, Kartik Prabhakaran, Joshua Klein, Matthew Bronstein, Ilya Shnaydman, Chirag Gandhi, Peter Rhee
{"title":"Intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with geriatric trauma may not improve outcome but is associated with increases in resource utilization.","authors":"Bardiya Zangbar, Aryan Rafieezadeh, Kartik Prabhakaran, Joshua Klein, Matthew Bronstein, Ilya Shnaydman, Chirag Gandhi, Peter Rhee","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2024-001644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) is currently recommended for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The hypothesis was that ICPM does not change mortality in the geriatric patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database (2017-2021) was queried to identify intubated geriatric patients (≥65 years of age) with isolated blunt TBI (non-Head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score <3), with admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 3-8. Patients with death on arrival or with hospital length of stay <24 hours and patients who underwent craniotomy before ICPM placement were excluded. Favorable discharge disposition was defined as home with or without assistance, and rehabilitation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between ICPM and non-ICPM patients and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was defined as in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were defined as discharge disposition, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and ventilator days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 416 patients met criteria for analysis. ICPM was placed in only 12.1% (n=2363) patients. The Injury Severity Score, GCS and head AIS were similar between the patients with and without monitors. After PSM, we were able to match 2148 patients and there was no difference in mortality between the two groups (52.4% vs 52.1%, p=0.874); however, patients treated with ICPM had significantly longer hospital length of stay (10 (5-17) vs 7 (3-15) days, p<0.001), ICU length of stay (8 (4-14) vs 6 (3-10), p<0.001) and ventilator days (6 (3-11) vs 4 (2-7), p<0.001). Discharge disposition was trending towards unfavorable with increasing age but was similar between the ICPM and No-ICPM groups (p=0.115).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The usefulness of ICPM in geriatric patients has not yet been shown and would benefit from prospective clinical studies. Minimizing ICPM in geriatric patients may reduce resource burdening without affecting outcome.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III retrospective study.</p>","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":"10 1","pages":"e001644"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2024-001644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) is currently recommended for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The hypothesis was that ICPM does not change mortality in the geriatric patient population.

Methods: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database (2017-2021) was queried to identify intubated geriatric patients (≥65 years of age) with isolated blunt TBI (non-Head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score <3), with admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 3-8. Patients with death on arrival or with hospital length of stay <24 hours and patients who underwent craniotomy before ICPM placement were excluded. Favorable discharge disposition was defined as home with or without assistance, and rehabilitation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between ICPM and non-ICPM patients and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was defined as in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were defined as discharge disposition, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and ventilator days.

Results: A total of 19 416 patients met criteria for analysis. ICPM was placed in only 12.1% (n=2363) patients. The Injury Severity Score, GCS and head AIS were similar between the patients with and without monitors. After PSM, we were able to match 2148 patients and there was no difference in mortality between the two groups (52.4% vs 52.1%, p=0.874); however, patients treated with ICPM had significantly longer hospital length of stay (10 (5-17) vs 7 (3-15) days, p<0.001), ICU length of stay (8 (4-14) vs 6 (3-10), p<0.001) and ventilator days (6 (3-11) vs 4 (2-7), p<0.001). Discharge disposition was trending towards unfavorable with increasing age but was similar between the ICPM and No-ICPM groups (p=0.115).

Conclusion: The usefulness of ICPM in geriatric patients has not yet been shown and would benefit from prospective clinical studies. Minimizing ICPM in geriatric patients may reduce resource burdening without affecting outcome.

Level of evidence: Level III retrospective study.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信