Open AccessGroup‐based trajectory modeling of intracranial pressure in patients with acute brain injury: Results from multi‐center ICUs , 2008–2019
Author(s) -
Yang Fan,
Peng Chi,
Peng Liwei,
Wang Peng,
Cheng Chao,
Zuo Wei,
Zhao Lei,
Jin Zhichao,
Li Weixin
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
cns neuroscience and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.403
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1755-5949
pISSN - 1755-5930
DOI - 10.1111/cns.13854
Subject(s) - medicine , confidence interval , receiver operating characteristic , intensive care unit , odds ratio , logistic regression , area under the curve , intracranial pressure , intensive care , traumatic brain injury , emergency medicine , cohort , cohort study , intensive care medicine , surgery , psychiatry
Objective The objective of the study was to characterize the longitudinal, dynamic intracranial pressure (ICP) trajectory in acute brain injury (ABI) patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) and explore whether it added sights over traditional thresholds in predicting outcomes. Methods ABI patients with ICP monitoring were identified from two public databases named Medical Information Mart for the Intensive Care (MIMIC)‐IV and eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU‐CRD). Group‐based trajectory modeling (GBTM) was employed to identify 4‐h ICP trajectories in days 0–5 post‐ICU admission. Then, logistic regression was used to compare clinical outcomes across distinct groups. To further validate previously reported thresholds, we created the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in our dataset. Results A total of 810 eligible patients were ultimately enrolled in the study. GBTM analyses generated 6 distinct ICP trajectories, differing in the initial ICP, evolution pattern, and number/proportion of spikes >20/22 mmHg. Compared with patients in “the highest, declined then rose” trajectory, those belonging to the “lowest, stable,” “low, stable,” and “medium, stable” ICP trajectories were at lower risks of 30‐day mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01, 0.21), (OR 0.04; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19), (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01, 0.42), respectively. ROC analysis demonstrated an unfavorable result, for example, 30‐day mortality in total cohort: an area under the curve (AUC): 0.528, sensitivity: 0.11, and specificity: 0.94. Conclusions This study identified three ICP trajectories associated with elevated risk, three with reduced risks for mortality during ICU hospitalization. Notably, a fixed ICP threshold should not be applied to all kinds of patients. GBTM, a granular method for describing ICP evolution and their association with clinical outcomes, may add to the current knowledge in intracranial hypertension treatment.