In November 2017, the Lancet Neurology Commission on Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) highlighted existing deficiencies in epidemiology, patient characterization, identifying best practice, outcome assessment, and evidence generation. The Commission concluded that C needed to address deficiencies in prevention , and made a recommendation for large collaborative studies which could provide the framework for precision medicine and comparative effectiveness research (CER).

Although intracranial pressure (ICP) is essential to guide management of patients suffering from acute brain diseases, this signal is often neglected outside the neurocritical care environment. This is mainly attributed to the intrinsic risks of the available invasive techniques, which have prevented ICP monitoring in many conditions affecting the intracranial homeostasis, from mild traumatic brain injury to liver encephalopathy. In such scenario, methods for non-invasive monitoring of ICP (nICP) could improve clinical management of these conditions. A review of the literature was performed on PUBMED using the search keywords ‘Transcranial Doppler non-invasive intracranial pressure.’ Transcranial Doppler (TCD) is a technique primarily aimed at assessing the cerebrovascular dynamics through the cerebral blood flow velocity (FV). Its applicability for nICP assessment emerged from observation that some TCD-derived parameters change during increase of ICP, such as the shape of FV pulse waveform or pulsatility index. Methods were grouped as: based on TCD pulsatility index; aimed at non-invasive estimation of cerebral perfusion pressure and model-based methods. Published studies present with different accuracies, with prediction abilities (AUCs) for detection of ICP ≥20 mmHg ranging from 0.62 to 0.92. This discrepancy could result from inconsistent assessment measures and application in different conditions, from traumatic brain injury to hydrocephalus and stroke. Most of the reports stress a potential advantage of TCD as it provides the possibility to monitor changes of ICP in time. Overall accuracy for TCD-based methods ranges around ±12 mmHg, with a great potential of tracing dynamical changes of ICP in time, particularly those of vasogenic nature.

IntroductionIndividualising therapy is an important challenge for intensive care of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Targeting a cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) tailored to optimise cerebrovascular autoregulation has been suggested as an attractive strategy on the basis of a large body of retrospective observational data. The objective of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of such a strategy compared with fixed thresholds which is the current standard of care from international consensus guidelines.Methods and analysisCPPOpt Guided Therapy: Assessment of Target Effectiveness (COGiTATE) is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised, controlled trial coordinated from Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht (The Netherlands). The other original participating centres are Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge (UK), and University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven (Belgium). Adult severe TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring are randomised within the first 24 hours of admission in neurocritical care unit. For the control arm, the CPP target is the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines target (60–70 mm Hg); for the intervention group an automated CPP target is provided as the CPP at which the patient’s cerebrovascular reactivity is best preserved (CPPopt). For a maximum of 5 days, attending clinicians review the CPP target 4-hourly. The main hypothesis of COGiTATE are: (1) in the intervention group the percentage of the monitored time with measured CPP within a range of 5 mm Hg above or below CPPopt will reach 36%; (2) the difference in between groups in daily therapy intensity level score will be lower or equal to 3.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained for each participating centre. The results will be presented at international scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02982122

BackgroundAfter traumatic brain injury (TBI), the ability of cerebral vessels to appropriately react to changes in arterial blood pressure (pressure reactivity) is impaired, leaving patients vulnerable to cerebral hypo- or hyperperfusion. Although, the traditional pressure reactivity index (PRx) has demonstrated that impaired pressure reactivity is associated with poor patient outcome, PRx is sometimes erratic and may not be reliable in various clinical circumstances. Here, we introduce a more robust transform-based wavelet pressure reactivity index (wPRx) and compare its performance with the widely used traditional PRx across 3 areas: its stability and reliability in time, its ability to give an optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt) recommendation, and its relationship with patient outcome.Methods and findingsFive hundred and fifteen patients with TBI admitted in Addenbrooke’s Hospital, United Kingdom (March 23rd, 2003 through December 9th, 2014), with continuous monitoring of arterial blood pressure (ABP) and intracranial pressure (ICP), were retrospectively analyzed to calculate the traditional PRx and a novel wavelet transform-based wPRx. wPRx was calculated by taking the cosine of the wavelet transform phase-shift between ABP and ICP. A time trend of CPPopt was calculated using an automated curve-fitting method that determined the cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) at which the pressure reactivity (PRx or wPRx) was most efficient (CPPopt_PRx and CPPopt_wPRx, respectively).There was a significantly positive relationship between PRx and wPRx (r = 0.73), and wavelet wPRx was more reliable in time (ratio of between-hour variance to total variance, wPRx 0.957 ± 0.0032 versus PRx and 0.949 ± 0.047 for PRx, p = 0.002). The 2-hour interval standard deviation of wPRx (0.19 ± 0.07) was smaller than that of PRx (0.30 ± 0.13, p < 0.001). wPRx performed better in distinguishing between mortality and survival (the area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUROC] for wPRx was 0.73 versus 0.66 for PRx, p = 0.003). The mean difference between the patients’ CPP and their CPPopt was related to outcome for both calculation methods. There was a good relationship between the 2 CPPopts (r = 0.814, p < 0.001). CPPopt_wPRx was more stable than CPPopt_PRx (within patient standard deviation 7.05 ± 3.78 versus 8.45 ± 2.90; p < 0.001).Key limitations include that this study is a retrospective analysis and only compared wPRx with PRx in the cohort of patients with TBI. Prior prospective validation is required to better assess clinical utility of this approach.ConclusionswPRx offers several advantages to the traditional PRx: it is more stable in time, it yields a more consistent CPPopt recommendation, and, importantly, it has a stronger relationship with patient outcome. The clinical utility of wPRx should be explored in prospective studies of critically injured neurological patients.