Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database in Japan

Effects of intracranial pressure monitoring in pediatric severe traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

Introduction

As Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality. The clinical benefits of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in pediatric TBI remain debated. This meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of ICP monitoring on outcomes in children with severe TBI.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Studies comparing pediatric severe TBI patients with and without ICP monitoring were included. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complications, while secondary outcomes included craniotomy/craniectomy rate, length of hospital stay and ICU stay, mechanical ventilation duration, and medical costs. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for cohort studies. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables were calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software.

Results

Eight studies (12,987 patients) were included. ICP monitoring showed no significant impact on overall in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.14; p = 0.65), though propensity score matching (PSM) studies indicated a lower mortality rate with ICP monitoring (OR, 0.62; p = 0.005). However, ICP monitoring was associated with higher risks of infection-related (OR, 7.21; p < 0.001) and respiratory complications (OR, 5.79; p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR, 5.37; p < 0.001), increased craniotomy/craniectomy rates (OR, 2.34; P = 0.01), longer hospital (OR, 12.00; p < 0.001) and ICU stays (OR, 7.82; p < 0.001), extended mechanical ventilation durations (OR, 5.82; p < 0.001), and higher medical costs (WMD, 10.49; p = 0.006).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found no overall reduction in in-hospital mortality with ICP monitoring in pediatric severe TBI, potentially due to baseline severity imbalances in retrospective studies. However, PSM studies suggest a mortality benefit, indicating that ICP monitoring may be effective when confounding is minimized. Increased complication risks, longer hospital/ICU stays, prolonged ventilation, and higher costs were associated with monitoring, though these may reflect injury severity rather than monitoring itself. Given the limitations of this study, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Predicting and improving outcome in severe pediatric traumatic brain injury

INTRODUCTION

Severe pediatric traumatic brain injury (spTBI), including abusive head trauma (AHT) in young children, is a major public health problem. Long-term consequences of spTBI include a large variety of physical, neurological, biological, cognitive, behavioral and social deficits and impairments.

AREAS COVERED

The present narrative review summarizes studies and reviews published from January 2019 to February 2024 on spTBI. Significant papers published before 2019 were also included. The article gives coverage to the causes of spTBI, its epidemiology and fatality rates; disparities, inequalities, and socioeconomic factors; critical care; outcomes; and interventions.

EXPERT OPINION

There are disparities between countries and according to socio-economic factors regarding causes, treatments and outcomes of spTBI. AHT has an overall poor outcome. Adherence to critical care guidelines is imperfect and the evidence-base of guidelines needs further investigations. Neuroimaging and biomarker predictors of outcomes is a rapidly evolving domain. Long-term cognitive, behavioral and psychosocial difficulties are the most prevalent and disabling. Their investigation should make a clear distinction between objective (clinical examination, cognitive tests, facts) and subjective measures (estimations using patient- and proxy-reported questionnaires), considering possible common source bias in reported difficulties. Family/caregiver-focused interventions, ecological approaches, and use of technology in delivery of interventions are recommended to improve long-term difficulties after spTBI.

Current practice of intracranial pressure monitoring in children with severe traumatic brain injury-a nationwide prospective surveillance study in Germany

Background

For management of severe traumatic brain injuries (sTBI) in children, the overall level of evidence to guide diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is low. Since 2016, international guidelines have subsequently suggested invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤8. In Germany, ICP monitoring was an individual case decision from 2011 until the 2022 update of the German pediatric TBI guideline. The aim of this study was to evaluate current clinical practice of invasive ICP monitoring in Germany in children <10 years with respect to guideline recommendations.

Methods

Anonymized clinical data on sTBI cases <10 years of age were collected in a nationwide prospective surveillance study via the German Pediatric Surveillance Unit ESPED from July 2019 until June 2022. Inclusion criteria for the surveillance study were sTBI (initial GCS ≤8) or neurosurgery following TBI. For this analysis, only cases with GCS ≤8 were subject to the present analysis. Descriptive analyses were performed to assess the proportion of ICP monitored patients and describe the cohort.

Results

Out of 217 reported cases, 102 cases met the inclusion criteria and thus qualified for ICP monitoring. Of these, 37 (36%) received ICP monitoring. Monitored patients were older, had lower median GCS values at presentation (4 vs. 5), higher mortality (32% vs. 22%), and were more frequently diagnosed with cerebral edema (68% vs. 37%).

Conclusion

In children <10 years with sTBI, the present clinical management regarding ICP monitoring deviates from the current German national and international guidelines. The reasons remain unclear, with the low level of evidence in the field of ICP monitoring and the recency of changes in guideline recommendations as potential contributors. Prospective interventional studies should elucidate the benefit of ICP monitoring and ICP directed therapies to provide evidence-based recommendations on ICP monitoring.