Elective ICP monitoring: how long is long enough?
- 316 Downloads
Intracranial pressure monitoring is commonly undertaken to assess and manage acute patients following head injury. However, ICP monitoring can also be a useful diagnostic tool in the management of CSF dynamics in elective patients. To date, there is little published research to suggest how long these elective patients require ICP monitoring in order to gain an accurate picture of a patient’s ICP dynamics. At the author’s institution, a minimum of 48-h data collection is currently undertaken in patients with a suspected ICP abnormality.
A retrospective audit was undertaken comparing overall median ICP and overall median pulse amplitude data at three time points, 24 h, 48 h and total time analysed (if longer than 48 h). Paired T-test was used to assess if there were statistically significant differences between 24-h versus 48-h monitoring and total duration of monitoring. All patients admitted over a 6-month period for ICPM who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were included.
Eighteen patients met the criteria. Median age was 45.8 years, range 22–83 years, 12 female and 6 male. No complications were experienced as a result of ICPM. Diagnosis included NPH, IIH, suspected shunt malfunction and Chiari malformation. The results demonstrated that there is no statistical difference between 24 h and 48 h or longer for both overall median ICP and pulse amplitude.
The results of this study demonstrate that ICP monitoring of elective adult patients using a Spiegelberg intraparenchymal bolt for 24 h gives an accurate picture of a patient’s ICP dynamics compared with longer periods of monitoring.
KeywordsElective ICP Intracranial pressure monitoring Hydrocephalus Management
Intracranial pressure monitoring
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus
- 3.Burrows G (1848) On disorders of the cerebral circulation and on the connection between affections of the brain and diseases of the heart. Lea & Blanchard, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 4.Cushing H (1926) The third circulation in studies in intracranial physiology and surgery. Oxford Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 9.Gelabert-Gonzalez M, Ginesta-Galan V, Sernamito-Garcia R, Allut AG, Bandin-Dieguez J, Rumbo RM (2006) The Camino intracranial pressure device in clinical practice. Assessment in 1000 cases. Acta Neurosur 148(4):435–441Google Scholar
- 10.Horcajadas A, Roman A, Olivares G, Saura E, Jorques A, Cordero N, Ibanez B, Sanchez C, Roldan MA (2011) Usefulnes of IPC continuous monitoring in shunt dysfunction. Neurocirugia (Asturias, Spain) 22(4):310–323Google Scholar
- 12.Lundberg N (1960) Continuous recording and control of ventricular fluid pressure in neurosurgical practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand 36(supplement 149):1–193Google Scholar
- 14.Monro A (1783) Observations on structure and functions of the nervous system. Edinburgh, Creech and JohnsonGoogle Scholar
- 16.Poca MA, Martinez-Ricarte F, Sahuquillo J, Lastra R, Torne R, Armengol MS (2008) Intracranial presaure monitoring with the Neurodur-P epidural sensor: a prospective study in patients with adult hydrocephalus or idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurosurg 108:934–942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Raboel PH, Bartek J Jr, Andersen M, Bellander BM, Romner B (2012) Intracranial pressure monitoring: invasive versus non-invasive methods—a review. Critical Care Research and Practice 2112:950393Google Scholar
- 18.Sæhle T, Eide PK (2015) Intracranial pressure monitoring in paediatric and adult patients with hydrocephalus and tentative shunt failure: a single centre experience over 10 years in 146 patients. J Neurosurg 122(5):1076–1086Google Scholar