RESUMO
The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of intracranial hypertension (IHT) and the associated mortality rate in patients who suffered from primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). A secondary objective was to assess predisposing factors to IHT development. We conducted a systematic literature search of major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library), for studies that assessed intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with acute ICH. Study level and outcome measures were extracted. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. A total of six studies comprising 381 patients were pooled to estimate the overall prevalence of any episode of IHT (ICP > 20 mmHg) after ICH. The pooled prevalence rate for any episode of IHT after ICH was 67% (95% CI 51-84%). Four studies comprising 239 patients were pooled in order to estimate the overall mortality rate associated with IHT. Pooled mortality rate was 50% (95% CI 24-76%). For both outcomes, heterogeneity was statistically significant, and risk of bias was nonsignificant. Reported variables correlated significantly with increased ICP were lower Glasgow Coma Scale score at admission, midline shift, hemorrhage volume, and hydrocephalus. The prevalence and mortality rates associated with IHT after ICH are high and may be underestimated. Predicting factors for the development of IHT reflect the magnitude of the primary injury. However, the results of present meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations such as selection bias of patients who had ICP monitoring, and lack of standardized IHT definition.
Assuntos
Hemorragia Cerebral/complicações , Hemorragia Cerebral/mortalidade , Hipertensão Intracraniana/epidemiologia , Humanos , Prevalência , Taxa de SobrevidaRESUMO
Widely-varying published and presented analyses of the Benchmark Evidence From South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the group's general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83% to 100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that the BEST TRIP trial: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation.