Mind the drain: expanding TIMING-ICP discussion

Abstract

To the Editor,

We found the multicenter TIMING-ICP study by Mariani et al. [1] insightful, as it underscores time-related differences in severe brain injury management and the importance of efficient intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring workflows. The study elegantly highlights practical time-dependent disparities in the management of severe brain injury and reinforces the need for streamlined workflows in ICP monitoring. While noninvasive multimodality strategies can reduce delays in neurological monitoring, invasive ICP monitoring remains essential in neurocritical care [2]. While we appreciate the authors’ efforts to reduce delays — a goal we strongly support — we respectfully believe some methodological concerns limit the study’s conclusions and clinical applicability.

The strength of the Timing-ICP study lies in demonstrating that initiating ICP monitoring earlier than current standard practice is feasible and potentially beneficial. However, the choice between monitoring modalities should be based on individual patient needs and the therapeutic capabilities required, not solely on procedural timing. In the study, intensivists treated predominantly severe TBI cases (82% vs. 49%), while neurosurgeons managed more SAH patients (27% vs. 11%). SAH patients typically require EVDs for hydrocephalus management and CSF blood clearance, while most severe TBI patients may be appropriately managed with parenchymal probes (bolts) alone. This indicates that device selection was based on clinical need rather than for study purposes, so comparing timing across different patient groups and situations is inappropriate.

Although the study utilizes an observational, non-randomized design, it is important to note that it evaluates inherently distinct procedures rather than different practitioners performing the same intervention. External ventricular drains (EVDs), when placed by neurosurgeons, fulfill both diagnostic and therapeutic roles by permitting cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage for immediate ICP reduction. In contrast, bolts are limited to providing monitoring capabilities. While these probes are simpler to place, they do not facilitate CSF drainage—a critical component in the therapeutic management of intracranial hypertension.

EVDs enable precise ICP measurement and uniquely allow for dynamic regulation of ICP through CSF diversion, which is particularly beneficial for patients presenting with hydrocephalus, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or intraventricular hemorrhage [3]. On the other hand, measured intraparenchymal pressure can differ from ICP measured in the ventricles, with an average difference up to ± 6 mmHg [4]. Additional advantages of EVDs include their utility in CSF sampling for biomarker analysis [5] and the removal of intraventricular blood to enhance CSF flow [6]. EVDs are widely considered the gold standard for both diagnostic and therapeutic applications, especially in cases requiring long-term management of intracranial pressure [7].

The study inadvertently sheds light on a fundamental issue: patients requiring EVDs (for hydrocephalus, intraventricular hemorrhage, or therapeutic CSF drainage) may face longer delays, regardless of timing optimization efforts. Since EVD placement is inherently more complex than parenchymal probe insertion, higher complication rates in the neurosurgery group would be expected based on procedural differences alone. Therefore, comparing complication incidence between groups is also methodologically flawed and does not provide valid safety comparisons.

Standardizing procedures, patient profiles, therapeutic intensity, outcome measures, and employing randomized designs could clarify the feasibility of having intensivists implant ICP monitors.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

1. Mariani L, Calza S, Gritti P, Zerbi SM, Russo E, Deana C, et al. From indication to initiation of invasive intracranial pressure monitoring time differences between neurosurgeons and intensive care physicians: can intracranial hypertension dose be reduced? TIMING-ICP, a multicenter, observational, prospective study. Crit Care. 2025;29(1):237.

   PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

2. Brasil S, Patriota GC, Godoy DA, Paranhos JL, Rubiano AM, Paiva WS. Monro-kellie 4.0: moving from intracranial pressure to intracranial dynamics. Crit Care. 2025;29(1):229.

   PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

3. Liu H, Wang W, Cheng F, Yuan Q, Yang J, Hu J, et al. External ventricular drains versus intraparenchymal intracranial pressure monitors in traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study. World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):794–800.

   PubMed Google Scholar

4. Pelah AI, Zakrzewska A, Calviello LA, Forcht Dagi T, Czosnyka Z, Czosnyka M. Accuracy of intracranial pressure monitoring-single centre observational study and literature review. Sensors (Basel). 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23073397.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

5. Bogoslovsky T, Gill J, Jeromin A, Davis C, Diaz-Arrastia R. Fluid biomarkers of traumatic brain injury and intended context of use. Diagnostics (Basel). 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics6040037.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

6. Haldrup M, Miscov R, Mohamad N, Rasmussen M, Dyrskog S, Simonsen CZ et al. Treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage with external ventricular drainage and fibrinolysis: A comprehensive systematic review and Meta-Analysis of complications and outcome. World Neurosurg. 2023;174:183– 96 e6.

7. Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, Ullman JS, Hawryluk GW, Bell MJ, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(1):6–15.

   PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Authors and Affiliations

1. Experimental Surgery Laboratory, Division of Neurological Surgery, University of São Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil

   Sergio Brasil, Samia Yasin Wayhs, Davi Jorge F. Solla & Raphael Bertani

2. University of São Paulo, Av. Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar 255, São Paulo, Brazil

   Sergio Brasil, Samia Yasin Wayhs, Davi Jorge F. Solla & Raphael Bertani

Authors

1. Sergio BrasilView author publications

   Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

2. Samia Yasin WayhsView author publications

   Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

3. Davi Jorge F. SollaView author publications

   Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

4. Raphael BertaniView author publications

   Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors equally contributed with paper writing and revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergio Brasil.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Brasil, S., Wayhs, S.Y., Solla, D. et al. Mind the drain: expanding TIMING-ICP discussion. Crit Care 29, 355 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05607-0

Download citation

• Received: 01 August 2025

• Accepted: 05 August 2025

• Published: 14 August 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05607-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative