Over the years, defining the “optimal” intracranial pressure (ICP) threshold to intervene with a single number has served to help guide the field of neurocritical care to manage complex disorders, such as severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), in a “heuristic” or practical manner. However, in a disease as complex and heterogeneous as severe TBI, simple may be less than optimal and in some cases, even misleading. ICP targets to optimize cerebral blood flow (CBF), prevent herniation, and impact other more nuanced effects may be regional, temporal, and/or vary depending on the therapy used to affect them.
In this issue of Neurocritical Care, Lazaridis et al. [1] present a timely and provocative “View Point” that addresses the heuristic nature of ICP thresholds. They raise appropriate concern about “unidimensional excursions,” the fact that an association between an ICP threshold and outcome does not imply that a therapy targeting values about that threshold will improve outcome, and suggest that heuristic thresholds may simply exist because of the association between ICP and injury severity. The somewhat capricious nature of a singular heuristic ICP threshold was further brought to light by the move from a threshold of 20 to 22 mmHg in the most recent severe TBI guidelines published by the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) [2]. Indeed, from our perspective, that change in the guidelines in part served as a springboard for the authors to raise a number of key concerns and question the “fast and frugal” nature of using a single ICP threshold.
We have great respect for the challenges faced by the BTF committees in working to define the best evidence-based ICP threshold—including first-hand experience by the first author of this editorial as the lead author on the pediatric severe TBI guidelines for over a decade [3,4,5]. This concern, as one might imagine, is magnified in pediatrics, where obligate age-related changes in mean arterial blood pressure imply the need for age-related differences in optimal ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), yet the available evidence does not quite meet the bar to generate strong evidence-based recommendations—despite some support [6, 7]. Many factors magnify the complexity in defining a single threshold in both adults and children. Issues of timing, duration, and dose are challenging to address with a single threshold and have multiple implications. For example, a duration of 5 min that ICP must be above the threshold is often used to direct intervention. But to the bedside clinician, that often depends on the level of increase. Indeed, some evidence suggests that any brief increases are importantly deleterious [8]. Similarly, the optimal ICP threshold in a given patient may vary at different times after the injury—i.e., that even a perfectly derived threshold in a patient may represent a moving target.
Looking back across the decades, it was always somewhat perplexing that therapies that reduce CBF, and not coupled to a metabolic reduction, such as hyperventilation, were recommended to reduce ICP—and shown to be associated with some of the best outcome data [9]. To recognize the potential pitfalls and/or unrecognized complexity of a heuristic view of ICP thresholds in the setting of hyperventilation, one only needs to review that early work of Darby et al. [10] with interrogation of the complex effects of hyperventilation on CBF in patients assessed using stable Xenon-computed tomography—where a reduction in ICP appeared to result from an overall reduction in CBF and cerebral blood volume (CBV), but was accompanied by marked increases in perfusion in contused and/or injured brain regions where blood pressure autoregulation and CO2 reactivity were lost.
Beyond preventing herniation, that ICP-directed therapy improves CBF and prevents brain tissue hypoxia [11] has long been a tenant for the need to define a threshold—however, there has been a longstanding controversy as to the role of ischemia in TBI—particularly outside of the initial hours after injury [12, 13]. The fact that both BTF-generated ICP-directed therapy and strategies suggested by the Lund protocol, given their substantive differences in management, are both associated with favorable outcomes reveals the complexities here [2, 14]. But beyond any putative relationship between ICP and CBF, provocative, pre-clinical work by Lafrenaye et al. [15] has suggested that ICP values below the threshold for effects on CBF may have cellular effects independent of effects on perfusion—resulting in neuronal membrane damage and neuronal injury. Similarly, effects of ICP and ICP-directed therapy on the recently recognized glymphatic pathway add further nuance to the picture [16].
Recently, elegant studies and descriptive data generated by Launey et al. [17] along with other studies from the Clinical Neurosciences group in Cambridge have expanded our knowledge of the relationship between ICP and ischemia, versus the role of coupled reductions in CBF and metabolism, after severe TBI using 15Oxygen positron emission tomography. In severe TBI, ischemia was common early after injury, consistent with classic reports [18, 19], but ischemic brain volumes were elevated even in the absence of raised ICP, and CBV was increased versus normal despite lower PaCO2 used in ICP management. Thus, the expected impact of targeting a simplistic ICP threshold value on the perfusion remains unclear at best.
We have also been interested in these issues with the goal to prevent rather than react to the development of cerebral edema. We seek to define the patients most likely to swell, and those who may benefit most from specific therapies targeting brain edema. We have been interested in augmenting conventional monitoring with specific edema-linked CSF biomarkers [20], along with edema-relevant genotyping [21,22,23]. We also recently explored the use of trajectory analysis of ICP with the hope of ultimately rapidly defining those who may benefit most from specific targeted interventions to block brain swelling [24]. The application of “precision monitoring” will likely be essential to that goal.
In the current era, all facets of TBI management are being challenged. As mentioned, Lazaridis et al. [1] suggest that the association between raised ICP and both mortality and unfavorable outcome may simply reflect its association with severity of injury. That may, in some cases be true. However, many moderate TBI patients that “talk and die,” including after fairly long lucid intervals are obvious examples that in TBI, optimal management of ICP can directly and profoundly impact outcome. Further complicating the picture, as mentioned, using trajectory analysis, we recently identified groups of adults with severe TBI that have poorer outcome than other trajectory-generated groups, despite little evidence of intracranial hypertension [24]. The generalizability of those trajectory groups remains to be demonstrated, but that study sheds additional light on the challenges of defining a threshold (and its utility) along with implications for trial design in studies of ICP-directed therapy.
It is unfortunate and surprising that decompressive craniectomy—taking ICP concerns out of the secondary injury equation—although life-saving in some cases, appears to have some unwanted effects possibly related to issues such as brain deformation, alterations in CBF regulation, disturbed glymphatic flux, persistent alterations in brain compliance, spreading depression, rapid de-escalation of otherwise protective facets of neurocritical care, or others yet to be characterized [25, 26] that may blunt its efficacy. And, as pointed out by Lazaridis et al. [1], how data from patients with decompression should influence ICP or CPP thresholds remains a conundrum, given that data from them are often included in studies addressing these issues, but they are clearly a group distinct from patients with an intact skull.
The concept of managing severe TBI without ICP monitoring—i.e., relying on clinical exam and serial imaging, has garnered some momentum [27, 28]. However, any therapeutic regimen developed to target brain swelling in TBI relies largely on the vast experience obtained from ICP-directed therapy [4, 29]. In agreement with Lazaridis et al. [1], rather than take steps backward, and abandon ICP monitoring, we believe that it is important to build on the information that ICP monitoring provides—even with decades of heuristic data. Also, greater integration of advanced imaging into clinical decision making is further supported given the fact that in the Best Trip study, more rather than less therapy, in general, was used in the group managed without ICP monitoring [27]. The potential benefits of “more therapy” versus “more monitoring,” however, remain undefined since in that study, there did not appear to be a functional difference in composite endpoint. Precision medicine to improve TBI outcomes will likely require “precision monitoring.” An ICP threshold represents a heuristic starting point in the management of severe TBI—and across other relevant diseases in neurocritical care—while recognizing the need for integrating multi-modal monitoring in a temporal, potentially regional, more nuanced, and cybernetic manner to guide therapy. Lazaridis et al. [1] also suggest that in some patients it may be very difficult to generate an optimal ICP threshold.
The authors of the pediatric severe TBI guidelines published last year, a long overdue algorithm [4], attempted to address the many nuances that were unable to be addressed in an evidence-based manner. Issues were raised such as the overall dose of raised ICP or fact that the thresholds defined in the guidelines may reflect minimum targets that should not be breached—whether discussing an ICP of 20 mmHg, or a given value for CPP, Hgb, or other parameter thresholds, for that matter. An approach to integrating multi-modal monitoring of ICP, CPP, and PbO2 along with other information was presented—although at this stage in our understanding, one could argue that any discussion of integrating multi-modal monitoring to guide decision making is also quite heuristic. An algorithm based on the adult guidelines was also just published [30].
Many nuanced tools for precision monitoring of ICP and brain swelling have been developed including pressure reactivity index, pressure amplitude index, and compensatory-reserve-weighted ICP, among others, and as discussed in the Viewpoint, it is exciting to see some of these additional tools show promise in providing complementary insight into studies from CENTER-TBI [31, 32] and with an ultimate goal that these, and other data, might be able to be integrated by machine learning to generate a brain management artificial intelligence paradigm [1]. Such an approach should also be developed to leverage the recently completed ADAPT trial in 1000 pediatric severe TBI cases with ICP-directed therapy [33]. Such paradigms might also likely benefit from biomarker and genetic data, and germane to ICP-directed therapy, specifically from biomarkers and genetics-linked to brain edema [20,21,22,23]. Studies such as “BOOST III” inquiring whether adding therapies targeting additional “thresholds,” such as for PbO2 [34], or more recent approaches in development to continuously assess brain compliance, refining the classic vision and approach of Anthony Marmarou [35,36,37], are also welcome steps forward. Precision monitoring of TBI, of course, will need to be integrated with conventional parameters, such as injury mechanism, and imaging, among other factors.
Finally, we must recognize that few studies have directly and prospectively addressed the issue of ICP threshold—in TBI or other relevant neurocritical care diseases. Robertson et al. [38] revealed the challenges and complexities related to comparing ICP or CPP targets in severe TBI. Those challenges include not only the ability to achieve the desired target, and the need to monitor the impact of that intervention on CBF and metabolism, but also the need to recognize and optimally manage the extra-cerebral consequences of the therapies. These consequences vary depending on the choice of therapy [39]. It thus is clear that “more” therapy is not always the answer. To that end, defining the optimal multi-modal “precision monitoring” approach, integrating the richest possible dataset generated with injury type, comorbidities, imaging endophenotype, biomarkers, and genetics, remains a vital goal for severe TBI. With that information we believe that it is likely that “more of a targeted therapy at the optimal time, in the right patient, and in the appropriate brain region” will be achievable across neurocritical care. Until that time, our guess is that we just need to “take a number.”
References
Lazaridis C, Desai M, Damoulakis G, Zeiler FA. Intracranial pressure threshold heuristics in traumatic brain injury: one, none, many. Neurocrit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-00940-4.
Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:6–15.
Kochanek PM, Tasker RC, Carney N, et al. Guidelines for the management of pediatric severe traumatic brain injury, third edition: update of the brain trauma foundation guidelines. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019;20(3S Suppl 1):S1–82.
Kochanek PM, Tasker RC, Bell MJ, et al. Management of pediatric severe traumatic brain injury: 2018 guidelines and consensus-based algorithm for first and second tier therapies. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019;20:269–79.
Kochanek PM, Carney N, Adelson PD, et al. Guidelines for the acute medical management of severe traumatic brain injury in infants, children, and adolescents, 2nd edition. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012;13(1):1–82.
Chambers IR, Stobbart L, Jones PA, et al. Age-related differences in intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure in the first 6 hours of monitoring after children’s head injury: association with outcome. Childs Nerv Syst. 2005;21:195–9.
Mehta A, Kochanek PM, Tyler-Kabara E, et al. Relationship of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure with outcome in young children after severe traumatic brain injury. Dev Neurosci. 2010;32:413–9.
Stein DM, Hu PF, Brenner M, et al. Brief episodes of intracranial hypertension and cerebral hypoperfusion are associated with poor functional outcome after severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2011;71:364–73.
Bruce DA, Raphaely RC, Goldberg AI, et al. Pathophysiology, treatment and outcome following severe head injury in children. Childs Brain. 1979;5:174–91.
Darby JM, Yonas H, Marion DW, Latchaw RE. Local “inverse steal” induced by hyperventilation in head injury. Neurosurgery. 1988;23:84–8.
Robertson CS, Valadka AB, Hannay HJ, et al. Prevention of secondary ischemic insults after severe head injury. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:2086–95.
Bouma GJ, Muizelaar JP. Cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and cerebrovascular reactivity after severe head injury. J Neurotrauma. 1992;9(Suppl 1):S333–48.
Bouma GJ, Muizelaar JP, Stringer WA, Choi SC, Fatouros P, Young HF. Ultra-early evaluation of regional cerebral blood flow in severely head-injured patients using xenon-enhanced computerized tomography. J Neurosurg. 1992;77:360–8.
Grände PO. Critical evaluation of the lund concept for treatment of severe traumatic head injury, 25 years after its introduction. Front Neurol. 2017;8:315.
Lafrenaye AD, Krahe TE, Povlishock JT. Moderately elevated intracranial pressure after diffuse traumatic brain injury is associated with exacerbated neuronal pathology and behavioral morbidity in the rat. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014;34:1628–36.
Lilja-Cyron A, Andresen M, Kelsen J, Andreasen TH, Fugleholm K, Juhler M. Long-term effect of decompressive craniectomy on intracranial pressure and possible implications for intracranial fluid movements. Neurosurgery. 2020;86:231–40.
Launey Y, Fryer TD, Hong YT, et al. Spatial and temporal pattern of ischemia and abnormal vascular function following traumatic brain injury. JAMA Neurol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3854.
Marion DW, Darby J, Yonas H. Acute regional cerebral blood flow changes caused by severe head injuries. J Neurosurg. 1991;74:407–14.
Adelson PD, Srinivas R, Chang Y, Bell M, Kochanek PM. Cerebrovascular response in children following severe traumatic brain injury. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27:1465–76.
Jha RM, Puccio A, Hsiang S, et al. Sulfonylurea receptor-1: a novel biomarker for cerebral edema in severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e255–64.
Jha RM, Puccio AM, Okonkwo DO, et al. ABCC8 single nucleotide polymorphisms are associated with cerebral edema in severe TBI. Neurocrit Care. 2017;26:213–24.
Jha R, Koleck TA, Puccio AM, et al. Regionally clustered ABCC8 polymorphisms in a prospective cohort predict cerebral oedema and outcome in severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89:1152–62.
Jha RM, Desai SM, Zusman BE, et al. Downstream TRPM4 polymorphisms are associated with intracranial hypertension and statistically interact with ABCC8 polymorphisms in a prospective cohort of severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36:1804–17.
Jha RM, Elmer J, Zusman BE, et al. Intracranial pressure trajectories: a novel approach to informing severe traumatic brain injury phenotypes. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1792–802.
Cooper DJ, Rosenfeld JV, Murray L, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1493–502.
Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, et al. Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1119–30.
Chesnut RM, Temkin N, Carney N, et al. A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2471–81.
Bennett TD, DeWitt PE, Greene TH, et al. Functional outcome after intracranial pressure monitoring for children with severe traumatic brain injury. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:965–71.
Horvat CM, Kochanek PM. Big data not yet big enough to determine the influence of intracranial pressure monitoring on outcome in children with severe traumatic brain injury. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:942–3.
Chesnut R, Aguilera S, Buki A, et al. A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC). Intensive Care Med. 2020 Jan 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05900-x. [Epub ahead of print].
Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, et al. Comparison of performance of different optimal cerebral perfusion pressure parameters for outcome prediction in adult traumatic brain injury: a collaborative european neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) study. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36:1505–17.
Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, et al. Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure versus intracranial pressure for outcome association in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI validation study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019;161:1275–84.
Miller Ferguson N, Sarnaik A, Miles D, et al. Abusive head trauma and mortality-an analysis from an international comparative effectiveness study of children with severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1398–407.
Okonkwo DO, Shutter LA, Moore C, et al. Brain oxygen optimization in severe traumatic brain injury phase-II: a phase II randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1907–14.
Maset AL, Marmarou A, Ward JD, Choi S, Lutz HA, Brooks D, Moulton RJ, DeSalles A, Muizelaar JP, Turner H, et al. Pressure–volume index in head injury. J Neurosurg. 1987;67(6):832–40.
Shapiro K, Marmarou A, Shulman K. Characterization of clinical CSF dynamics and neural axis compliance using the pressure–volume index: I. The normal pressure–volume index. Ann Neurol. 1980;7:508–14.
Wolf M, Jaskaran R, Horvat C, Simon D, Kochanek P, Clermont G, Clark R. Dynamic assessment of intracranial compliance in pediatric traumatic brain injury: proof of concept. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(1 Suppl 1):325.
Gopinath SP, Robertson CS, Contant CF, et al. Jugular venous desaturation and outcome after head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994;57:717–23.
Clifton GL, Miller ER, Choi SC, Levin HS. Fluid thresholds and outcome from severe brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:739–45.
Funding
K23NS101036/NS/NINDS (RMJ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. Kochanek is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Pediatric Critical Care Medicine and received an editor’s stipend from the Society of Critical Care Medicine for that work. The guidelines for the management of pediatric severe traumatic brain injury were published in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Jha reports grants from NIH/NINDS, grants from Chuck Noll Foundation, grants from Dean’s Faculty Award (University of Pittsburgh), personal fees from Biogen (Advisory Board, Paid Consultant), outside the submitted work. Dr. Clark has nothing to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kochanek, P.M., Jha, R.M. & Clark, R.S.B. “Take a Number”—Precision Monitoring Directs Precision Therapy. Neurocrit Care 32, 683–686 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-00941-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-00941-3