Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 469–480 | Cite as

Safety and Reliability of Bedside, Single Burr Hole Technique for Intracranial Multimodality Monitoring in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

  • Brandon Foreman
  • Laura B. Ngwenya
  • Erica Stoddard
  • Jason M. Hinzman
  • Norberto Andaluz
  • Jed A. Hartings
Original Article

Abstract

Background

We aimed to provide a systematic description of our 2-year experience using a standardized bedside, single burr hole approach to intracranial multimodality monitoring (MMM) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), focusing on safety and probe reliability.

Methods

We performed this observational cohort study at a university-affiliated, Level I trauma center with dedicated 20-bed neuroscience intensive care unit. We included 43 consecutive sTBI patients who required MMM to guide clinical care based on institutional protocol and had a four-lumen bolt placed to measure intracranial pressure, brain tissue oxygen, regional cerebral blood flow, brain temperature, and intracranial electroencephalography.

Results

sTBI patients were aged 41.6 ± 17.5 years (mean ± SD) and 84% were men. MMM devices were placed at a median of 12.5 h (interquartile range [IQR] 9.0–21.4 h) after injury and in non-dominant frontal lobe in 72.1% of cases. Monitoring was conducted for a median of 97.1 h (IQR 46.9–124.6 h) per patient. While minor hemorrhage, pneumocephalus, or small bone chips were common, only one (2.4%) patient experienced significant hemorrhage related to device placement. Radiographically, device malpositioning was noted in 13.9% of patients. Inadvertent device discontinuation occurred for at least one device in 58% of patients and was significantly associated with the frequency of travel for procedures or imaging. Devices remained in place for > 80% of the total monitoring period and generated usable data > 50% of that time.

Conclusions

A standardized, bedside single burr hole approach to MMM was safe. Despite some probe-specific recording limitations, MMM provided real-time measurements of intracranial pressure, oxygenation, regional cerebral blood flow, brain temperature, and function.

Keywords

Neurocritical care Multimodality monitoring Neuromonitoring Intracranial pressure Traumatic brain injury PbtO2 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the hard work and expertise of the Neurosurgery Residents and Neurocritical Care Fellows at the University of Cincinnati.

Authors’ Contributions

BF and LBN are involved in study concept and design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript draft. ES collected the data. JMH collected the data and revised the manuscript. NA involved in study concept and manuscript revisions. JAH contributed to study concept and design, and critical manuscript review.

Source of Funding

This work was supported in part by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, through the Defense Medical Research and Development Program under Award No. W81XWH-16-2-0020. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense. Funding was also provided by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Mayfield Education and Research Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no competing interests related to this study. Study authors BF, LBN, and JH participate in federally funded clinical and translational research that includes intracranial electroencephalography and multimodality monitoring technologies. BF receives consulting fees from Sage Therapeutics, Inc. and speaking fees from UCB.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the University of Cincinnati’s Institutional Review Board and complied with international standards for clinical research.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this observational study. All devices were used according to their FDA-approved indications.

Supplementary material

12028_2018_551_MOESM1_ESM.docx (45 kb)
Advanced Neuromonitoring Protocol. An institutional protocol used to standardize an approach to multimodal monitoring in patients with acute brain injuries such as traumatic brain injury (DOCX 44 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hawthorne C, Piper I. Monitoring of intracranial pressure in patients with traumatic brain injury. Front Neurol. 2014;5:121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Le Roux P, Menon DK, Citerio G, et al. Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1189–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dreier JP, Fabricius M, Ayata C, et al. Recording, analysis, and interpretation of spreading depolarizations in neurointensive care: review and recommendations of the COSBID research group. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017;37:1595–625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartings JA. Spreading depolarization monitoring in neurocritical care of acute brain injury. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23:94–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vespa P, Tubi M, Claassen J, et al. Metabolic crisis occurs with seizures and periodic discharges after brain trauma. Ann Neurol. 2016;79:579–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawryluk GWJ, Phan N, Ferguson AR, et al. Brain tissue oxygen tension and its response to physiological manipulations: influence of distance from injury site in a swine model of traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2016;125:1217–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cunningham AS, Salvador R, Coles JP, et al. Physiological thresholds for irreversible tissue damage in contusional regions following traumatic brain injury. Brain. 2005;128:1931–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeffcote T, Hinzman JM, Jewell SL, et al. Detection of spreading depolarization with intraparenchymal electrodes in the injured human brain. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20:21–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cnossen MC, Huijben JA, van der Jagt M, et al. Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2017;21:233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones PA, Andrews PJ, Midgley S, et al. Measuring the burden of secondary insults in head-injured patients during intensive care. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1994;6:4–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Badri S, Chen J, Barber J, et al. Mortality and long-term functional outcome associated with intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:1800–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yuan Q, Wu X, Sun Y, et al. Impact of intracranial pressure monitoring on mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg. 2015;122:574–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen L, Wang Z, Su Z, et al. Effects of intracranial pressure monitoring on mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0168901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nangunoori R, Maloney-Wilensky E, Stiefel M, et al. Brain tissue oxygen-based therapy and outcome after severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic literature review. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17:131–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stuart RM, Schmidt M, Kurtz P, et al. Intracranial multimodal monitoring for acute brain injury: a single institution review of current practices. Neurocrit Care. 2010;12:188–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patil V, Lacson R, Vosburgh KG, et al. Factors associated with external ventricular drain placement accuracy: data from an electronic health record repository. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013;155:1773–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Binz DD, Toussaint LG, Friedman JA. Hemorrhagic complications of ventriculostomy placement: a meta-analysis. Neurocrit Care. 2009;10:253–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bauer DF, Razdan SN, Bartolucci AA, et al. Meta-analysis of hemorrhagic complications from ventriculostomy placement by neurosurgeons. Neurosurgery. 2011;69:255–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gardner PA, Engh J, Atteberry D, et al. Hemorrhage rates after external ventricular drain placement. J Neurosurg. 2009;110:1021–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maniker AH, Vaynman AY, Karimi RJ, et al. Hemorrhagic complications of external ventricular drainage. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:ONS419–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poca M-A, Sahuquillo J, Arribas M, et al. Fiberoptic intraparenchymal brain pressure monitoring with the Camino V420 monitor: reflections on our experience in 163 severely head-injured patients. J Neurotrauma. 2002;19:439–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koskinen L-OD, Grayson D, Olivecrona M. The complications and the position of the Codman MicroSensor™ ICP device: an analysis of 549 patients and 650 Sensors. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013;155:2141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bekar A, Doğan S, Abaş F, et al. Risk factors and complications of intracranial pressure monitoring with a fiberoptic device. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16:236–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolf S, Horn P, Frenzel C, et al. Comparison of a new brain tissue oxygenation probe with the established standard. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2012;114:161–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ngwenya LB, Burke JF, Manley GT. Brain tissue oxygen monitoring and the intersection of brain and lung: a comprehensive review. Respir Care. 2016;61:1232–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hinzman JM, Andaluz N, Shutter LA, et al. Inverse neurovascular coupling to cortical spreading depolarizations in severe brain trauma. Brain J Neurol. 2014;137:2960–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lozier AP, Sciacca RR, Romagnoli MF, et al. Ventriculostomy-related infections: a critical review of the literature. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:170–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li C, Narayan RK, Wang P, et al. Regional temperature and quantitative cerebral blood flow responses to cortical spreading depolarization in the rat. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017;37:1634–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Cincinnati Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Neurotrauma CenterUniversity of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience InstituteCincinnatiUSA
  4. 4.University of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations