External Ventricular Drain Versus Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitor in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Madeline E Greil, Jason K Barber, Nancy R Temkin, Robert H Bonow, Geoffrey T Manley, Brandon Foreman, Randall M Chesnut
{"title":"External Ventricular Drain Versus Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitor in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study.","authors":"Madeline E Greil, Jason K Barber, Nancy R Temkin, Robert H Bonow, Geoffrey T Manley, Brandon Foreman, Randall M Chesnut","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000003594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The 2 most common intracranial pressure (ICP)-monitoring devices in traumatic brain injury (TBI) are external ventricular drains (EVDs) and intraparenchymal monitors (IPMs). EVDs and IPMs differ in functionality and debate remains as to whether device selection affects patient outcomes. We aimed to determine whether the use of EVDs or IPMs for ICP monitoring was associated with better outcomes using data from severe TBI patients prospectively enrolled in the 18-center US Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included patients aged 17 years or older with severe (Glasgow Coma Scale 3-8), nonpenetrating TBI who underwent placement of an EVD or IPM within 24 hours of arrival to a TRACK-TBI study center. Groups were compared using the Fisher exact or Mann-Whitney tests, before and after propensity weighting to attempt to better balance the groups. The primary outcome was 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended for TBI (GOSE-TBI). Secondary outcomes include hospital length of stay, survival on discharge, and 6-month neuropsychological outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 189 patients, 115 monitored with an EVD and 74 with an IPM. There was no significant difference in median 6-month GOSE-TBI between the EVD and IPM groups, 3 (2-5) and 3 (1-5), respectively (P = .201). A greater proportion of EVD patients were alive at hospital discharge (83% vs 69%), but this was no longer significant after propensity weighting (P = .091). Hospital length of stay for survivors was similar (28.0 ± 18.7 days for EVD vs 30.1 ± 24.7 days for IPM, P = .986). There were no significant differences in neuropsychological outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study of a multicenter severe TBI cohort did not find a significant difference in 6-month GOSE-TBI between patients monitored with an EVD and those monitored with an IPM. When correcting for other patient characteristics, the selection of ICP monitor type may not affect acute hospital or 6-month functional outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000003594","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: The 2 most common intracranial pressure (ICP)-monitoring devices in traumatic brain injury (TBI) are external ventricular drains (EVDs) and intraparenchymal monitors (IPMs). EVDs and IPMs differ in functionality and debate remains as to whether device selection affects patient outcomes. We aimed to determine whether the use of EVDs or IPMs for ICP monitoring was associated with better outcomes using data from severe TBI patients prospectively enrolled in the 18-center US Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study.

Methods: We included patients aged 17 years or older with severe (Glasgow Coma Scale 3-8), nonpenetrating TBI who underwent placement of an EVD or IPM within 24 hours of arrival to a TRACK-TBI study center. Groups were compared using the Fisher exact or Mann-Whitney tests, before and after propensity weighting to attempt to better balance the groups. The primary outcome was 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended for TBI (GOSE-TBI). Secondary outcomes include hospital length of stay, survival on discharge, and 6-month neuropsychological outcomes.

Results: We analyzed 189 patients, 115 monitored with an EVD and 74 with an IPM. There was no significant difference in median 6-month GOSE-TBI between the EVD and IPM groups, 3 (2-5) and 3 (1-5), respectively (P = .201). A greater proportion of EVD patients were alive at hospital discharge (83% vs 69%), but this was no longer significant after propensity weighting (P = .091). Hospital length of stay for survivors was similar (28.0 ± 18.7 days for EVD vs 30.1 ± 24.7 days for IPM, P = .986). There were no significant differences in neuropsychological outcomes.

Conclusion: Our study of a multicenter severe TBI cohort did not find a significant difference in 6-month GOSE-TBI between patients monitored with an EVD and those monitored with an IPM. When correcting for other patient characteristics, the selection of ICP monitor type may not affect acute hospital or 6-month functional outcomes.

重型外伤性脑损伤的外脑室引流与脑实质内压监测:一项TRACK-TBI研究。
背景和目的:外伤性脑损伤(TBI)中最常见的两种颅内压(ICP)监测装置是脑室外引流(EVDs)和脑实质内监护(IPMs)。evd和ipm在功能上有所不同,关于设备选择是否影响患者预后的争论仍然存在。我们的目的是确定使用evd或ipm进行ICP监测是否与更好的结果相关,使用来自美国18个中心TBI转化研究和临床知识(TRACK-TBI)研究的严重TBI患者的数据。方法:我们纳入了17岁或以上的严重(格拉斯哥昏迷评分3-8)非穿透性TBI患者,这些患者在到达TRACK-TBI研究中心后24小时内接受了EVD或IPM植入。在倾向加权之前和之后,使用Fisher精确或Mann-Whitney测试对组进行比较,以试图更好地平衡组。主要结局是6个月格拉斯哥结局量表-扩展TBI (gos -TBI)。次要结局包括住院时间、出院存活率和6个月神经心理结局。结果:我们分析了189例患者,其中115例有EVD监测,74例有IPM监测。EVD组和IPM组6个月中位高斯- tbi分别为3(2-5)和3(1-5),差异无统计学意义(P = .201)。EVD患者出院时存活的比例更高(83%对69%),但倾向加权后这一比例不再显著(P = 0.091)。幸存者的住院时间相似(EVD为28.0±18.7天,IPM为30.1±24.7天,P = .986)。两组在神经心理结果上无显著差异。结论:我们的多中心严重TBI队列研究未发现EVD监测患者和IPM监测患者6个月的高斯-TBI有显著差异。当校正其他患者特征时,选择ICP监护类型可能不会影响急性住院或6个月的功能结局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgery
Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
898
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery. Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信