Critical thresholds of long-pressure reactivity index and impact of intracranial pressure monitoring methods in traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) has a global mortality rate of about 30%, resulting in acquired life-long disabilities in many survivors. To potentially improve outcomes in this TBI population, the management of secondary injuries, particularly the failure of cerebrovascular reactivity (assessed via the pressure reactivity index; PRx, a correlation between intracranial pressure (ICP) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP)), has gained interest in the field. However, derivation of PRx requires high-resolution data and expensive technological solutions, as calculations use a short time-window, which has resulted in it being used in only a handful of centers worldwide. As a solution to this, low resolution (longer time-windows) PRx has been suggested, known as Long-PRx or LPRx. Though LPRx has been proposed little is known about the best methodology to derive this measure, with different thresholds and time-windows proposed. Furthermore, the impact of ICP monitoring on cerebrovascular reactivity measures is poorly understood. Hence, this observational study establishes critical thresholds of LPRx associated with long-term functional outcome, comparing different time-windows for calculating LPRx as well as evaluating LPRx determined through external ventricular drains (EVD) vs intraparenchymal pressure device (IPD) ICP monitoring. METHODS: The study included a total of n = 435 TBI patients from the Karolinska University Hospital. Patients were dichotomized into alive vs. dead and favorable vs. unfavorable outcomes based on 1-year Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). Pearson's chi-square values were computed for incrementally increasing LPRx or ICP thresholds against outcome. The thresholds that generated the greatest chi-squared value for each LPRx or ICP parameter had the highest outcome discriminatory capacity. This methodology was also completed for the segmentation of the population based on EVD, IPD, and time of data recorded in hospital stay. RESULTS: LPRx calculated with 10-120-min windows behaved similarly, with maximal chi-square values ranging at around a LPRx of 0.25-0.35, for both survival and favorable outcome. When investigating the temporal relations of LPRx derived thresholds, the first 4 days appeared to be the most associated with outcomes. The segmentation of the data based on intracranial monitoring found limited differences between EVD and IPD, with similar LPRx values around 0.3. CONCLUSION: Our work suggests that the underlying prognostic factors causing impairment in cerebrovascular reactivity can, to some degree, be detected using lower resolution PRx metrics (similar found thresholding values) with LPRx found clinically using as low as 10 min-by-minute samples of MAP and ICP. Furthermore, EVD derived LPRx with intermittent cerebrospinal fluid draining, seems to present similar outcome capacity as IPD. This low-resolution low sample LPRx method appears to be an adequate substitute for the clinical prognostic value of PRx and may be implemented independent of ICP monitoring method when PRx is not feasible, though further research is warranted.

Accuracy of Manual Intracranial Pressure Recording Compared to a Computerized High-Resolution System: A CENTER-TBI Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is crucial in the management of the patient with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). In several institutions ICP and CPP are summarized hourly and entered manually on bedside charts; these data have been used in large observational and interventional trials. However, ICP and CPP may change rapidly and frequently, so data recorded in medical charts might underestimate actual ICP and CPP shifts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual data annotation for proper capturing of ICP and CPP. For this aim, we (1) compared end-hour ICP and CPP values manually recorded (MR) with values recorded continuously by computerized high-resolution (HR) systems and (2) analyzed whether MR ICP and MR CPP are reliable indicators of the burden of intracranial hypertension and low CPP. METHODS: One hundred patients were included. First, we compared the MR data with the values stored in the computerized system during the first 7 days after admission. For this point-to-point analysis, we calculated the difference between end-hour MR and HR ICP and CPP. Then we analyzed the burden of high ICP (> 20 mm Hg) and low CPP (< 60 mm Hg) measured by the computerized system, in which continuous data were stored, compared with the pressure-time dose based on end-hour measurements. RESULTS: The mean difference between MR and HR end-hour values was 0.02 mm Hg for ICP (SD 3.86 mm Hg) and 1.54 mm Hg for CPP (SD 8.81 mm Hg). ICP > 20 mm Hg and CPP < 60 mm Hg were not detected by MR in 1.6% and 5.8% of synchronized measurements, respectively. Analysis of the pathological ICP and CPP throughout the recording, however, indicated that calculations based on manual recording seriously underestimated the ICP and CPP burden (in 42% and 28% of patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Manual entries fairly represent end-hour HR ICP and CPP. However, compared with a computerized system, they may prove inadequate, with a serious risk of underestimation of the ICP and CPP burden.

Clustering identifies endotypes of traumatic brain injury in an intensive care cohort: a CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: While the Glasgow coma scale (GCS) is one of the strongest outcome predictors, the current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' based on this fails to capture enormous heterogeneity in pathophysiology and treatment response. We hypothesized that data-driven characterization of TBI could identify distinct endotypes and give mechanistic insights. METHODS: We developed an unsupervised statistical clustering model based on a mixture of probabilistic graphs for presentation (< 24 h) demographic, clinical, physiological, laboratory and imaging data to identify subgroups of TBI patients admitted to the intensive care unit in the CENTER-TBI dataset (N = 1,728). A cluster similarity index was used for robust determination of optimal cluster number. Mutual information was used to quantify feature importance and for cluster interpretation. RESULTS: Six stable endotypes were identified with distinct GCS and composite systemic metabolic stress profiles, distinguished by GCS, blood lactate, oxygen saturation, serum creatinine, glucose, base excess, pH, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and body temperature. Notably, a cluster with 'moderate' TBI (by traditional classification) and deranged metabolic profile, had a worse outcome than a cluster with 'severe' GCS and a normal metabolic profile. Addition of cluster labels significantly improved the prognostic precision of the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical trials in TBI) extended model, for prediction of both unfavourable outcome and mortality (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Six stable and clinically distinct TBI endotypes were identified by probabilistic unsupervised clustering. In addition to presenting neurology, a profile of biochemical derangement was found to be an important distinguishing feature that was both biologically plausible and associated with outcome. Our work motivates refining current TBI classifications with factors describing metabolic stress. Such data-driven clusters suggest TBI endotypes that merit investigation to identify bespoke treatment strategies to improve care. Trial registration The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221 , registered on August 06, 2014, with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).

Clinical descriptors of disease trajectories in patients with traumatic brain injury in the intensive care unit (CENTER-TBI): a multicentre observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic brain injury are a heterogeneous population, and the most severely injured individuals are often treated in an intensive care unit (ICU). The primary injury at impact, and the harmful secondary events that can occur during the first week of the ICU stay, will affect outcome in this vulnerable group of patients. We aimed to identify clinical variables that might distinguish disease trajectories among patients with traumatic brain injury admitted to the ICU. METHODS: We used data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) prospective observational cohort study. We included patients aged 18 years or older with traumatic brain injury who were admitted to the ICU at one of the 65 CENTER-TBI participating centres, which range from large academic hospitals to small rural hospitals. For every patient, we obtained pre-injury data and injury features, clinical characteristics on admission, demographics, physiological parameters, laboratory features, brain biomarkers (ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 [UCH-L1], S100 calcium-binding protein B [S100B], tau, neurofilament light [NFL], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], and neuron-specific enolase [NSE]), and information about intracranial pressure lowering treatments during the first 7 days of ICU stay. To identify clinical variables that might distinguish disease trajectories, we applied a novel clustering method to these data, which was based on a mixture of probabilistic graph models with a Markov chain extension. The relation of clusters to the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) was investigated. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017, 4509 patients with traumatic brain injury were recruited into the CENTER-TBI core dataset, of whom 1728 were eligible for this analysis. Glucose variation (defined as the difference between daily maximum and minimum glucose concentrations) and brain biomarkers (S100B, NSE, NFL, tau, UCH-L1, and GFAP) were consistently found to be the main clinical descriptors of disease trajectories (ie, the leading variables contributing to the distinguishing clusters) in patients with traumatic brain injury in the ICU. The disease trajectory cluster to which a patient was assigned in a model was analysed as a predictor together with variables from the IMPACT model, and prediction of both mortality and unfavourable outcome (dichotomised GOS-E ≤4) was improved. INTERPRETATION: First-day ICU admission data are not the only clinical descriptors of disease trajectories in patients with traumatic brain injury. By analysing temporal variables in our study, variation of glucose was identified as the most important clinical descriptor that might distinguish disease trajectories in the ICU, which should direct further research. Biomarkers of brain injury (S100B, NSE, NFL, tau, UCH-L1, and GFAP) were also top clinical descriptors over time, suggesting they might be important in future clinical practice. FUNDING: European Union 7th Framework program, Hannelore Kohl Stiftung, OneMind, Integra LifeSciences Corporation, and NeuroTrauma Sciences.

Intracranial pressure monitoring in adult patients with traumatic brain injury: challenges and innovations.

Intracranial pressure monitoring enables the detection and treatment of intracranial hypertension, a potentially lethal insult after traumatic brain injury. Despite its widespread use, robust evidence supporting intracranial pressure monitoring and treatment remains sparse. International studies have shown large variations between centres regarding the indications for intracranial pressure monitoring and treatment of intracranial hypertension. Experts have reviewed these two aspects and, by consensus, provided practical approaches for monitoring and treatment. Advances have occurred in methods for non-invasive estimation of intracranial pressure although, for now, a reliable way to non-invasively and continuously measure intracranial pressure remains aspirational. Analysis of the intracranial pressure signal can provide information on brain compliance (ie, the ability of the cranium to tolerate volume changes) and on cerebral autoregulation (ie, the ability of cerebral blood vessels to react to changes in blood pressure). The information derived from the intracranial pressure signal might allow for more individualised patient management. Machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches are being increasingly applied to intracranial pressure monitoring, but many obstacles need to be overcome before their use in clinical practice could be attempted. Robust clinical trials are needed to support indications for intracranial pressure monitoring and treatment. Progress in non-invasive assessment of intracranial pressure and in signal analysis (for targeted treatment) will also be crucial.

The impact of sedative and vasopressor agents on cerebrovascular reactivity in severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of commonly administered sedatives (Propofol, Alfentanil, Fentanyl, and Midazolam) and vasopressor (Dobutamine, Ephedrine, Noradrenaline and Vasopressin) agents on cerebrovascular reactivity in moderate/severe TBI patients. Cerebrovascular reactivity, as a surrogate for cerebral autoregulation was assessed using the long pressure reactivity index (LPRx). We evaluated the data in two phases, first we assessed the minute-by-minute data relationships between different dosing amounts of continuous infusion agents and physiological variables using boxplots, multiple linear regression and ANOVA. Next, we assessed the relationship between continuous/bolus infusion agents and physiological variables, assessing pre-/post- dose of medication change in physiology using a Wilcoxon signed-ranked test. Finally, we evaluated sub-groups of data for each individual dose change per medication, focusing on key physiological thresholds and demographics. RESULTS: Of the 475 patients with an average stay of 10 days resulting in over 3000 days of recorded information 367 (77.3%) were male with a median Glasgow coma score of 7 (4-9). The results of this retrospective observational study confirmed that the infusion of most administered agents do not impact cerebrovascular reactivity, which is confirmed by the multiple linear regression components having p value > 0.05. Incremental dose changes or bolus doses in these medications in general do not lead to significant changes in cerebrovascular reactivity (confirm by Wilcoxon signed-ranked p value > 0.05 for nearly all assessed relationships). Within the sub-group analysis that separated the data based on LPRx pre-dose, a significance between pre-/post-drug change in LPRx was seen, however this may be more of a result from patient state than drug impact. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study indicates that commonly administered agents with incremental dosing changes have no clinically significant influence on cerebrovascular reactivity in TBI (nor do they impair cerebrovascular reactivity). Though further investigation in a larger and more diverse TBI patient population is required.