Observational studyNeurocritical care2024
Should Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury with Significant Contusions be Treated with Different Neurointensive Care Targets?
Observational study in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autoregulation-guided intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure targets in different subtypes and characteristics of traumatic brain injury.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Autoregulatory-guided management in traumatic brain injury: does age matter?Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) with large contusions make up a specific TBI subtype. Because of the risk of brain edema worsening, elevated cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) may be particularly dangerous. The pressure reactivity index (PRx) and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt) are new promising perfusion targets based on cerebral autoregulation, but they reflect the global brain state and may be less valid in patients with predominant focal lesions. In this study, we aimed to investigate if patients with TBI with significant contusions exhibited a different association between PRx, CPP, and CPPopt in relation to functional outcome compared to those with small/no contusions.
methodsThis observational study included 385 patients with moderate to severe TBI treated at a neurointensive care unit in Uppsala, Sweden. The patients were classified into two groups: (1) significant contusions (> 10 mL) and (2) small/no contusions (but with extra-axial or diffuse injuries). The percentage of good monitoring time (%GMT) with intracranial pressure > 20 mm Hg; PRx > 0.30; CPP < 60 mm Hg, within 60-70 mm Hg, or > 70 mm Hg; and ΔCPPopt less than - 5 mm Hg, ± 5 mm Hg, or > 5 mm Hg was calculated. Outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended) was assessed after 6 months.
resultsAmong the 120 (31%) patients with significant contusions, a lower %GMT with CPP between 60 and 70 mm Hg was independently associated with unfavorable outcome. The %GMTs with PRx and ΔCPPopt ± 5 mm Hg were not independently associated with outcome. Among the 265 (69%) patients with small/no contusions, a higher %GMT of PRx > 0.30 and a lower %GMT of ΔCPPopt ± 5 mm Hg were independently associated with unfavorable outcome.
conclusionsIn patients with TBI with significant contusions, CPP within 60-70 mm Hg may improve outcome. PRx and CPPopt, which reflect global cerebral pressure autoregulation, may be useful in patients with TBI without significant focal brain lesions but seem less valid for those with large contusions. However, this was an observational, hypothesis-generating study; our findings need to be validated in prospective studies before translating them into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.