Raffiz et al., 201711 Raffi z M, Abdullah JM. Optic nerve sheath diameter measurement: a means of detecting raised ICP in adult traumatic and non-traumatic neurosurgical patients. Am J Emerg Med 2017;35(01): 150-153
|
Prospective observational study |
41 |
ONSD |
-
–
ONSD values and ICP: r = 0.820; p = 0.01.
-
–
Including TBI and non-TBI groups: AUC of 0.964 (CI 95% 0.921–1.0)
-
–
Best cutoff point: 5.205 mm with 95.8% sensitivity and 80.4% specificity
-
–
Sensitivity and specificity of 5.47 mm in TBI group were higher than in non-TBI group (94.4% vs 83.3% and 95.2% vs 93.3%)
|
Singer et al., 202122 Singer KE, Wallen TE, Jalbert T, et al. Efficacy of Noninvasive Technologies in Triaging Traumatic Brain Injury and Correlating With Intracranial Pressure: A Prospective Study. J Surg Res 2021; 262:27-37
|
Prospective observational study |
135P |
ONSD Pupillometry TCD |
ONSD
- –
ONSD differs significantly bilaterally between mild TBI, non-TBI, and severe TBI on postinjury days 2 and 3
- –
ONSD was not found to correlate with ICP.
Pupillometry
- –
Significant bilaterally percent changes in pupil diameters (p < 0.01), constriction velocity (p < 0.01) and dilatation velocity (p < 0.01) on postinjury days 1 and 2
- –
Values obtained from dynamic changes of pupil reliably differentiated severe TBI from mild brain injuries on postinjury days 2 and 3.
- –
Pupillometry values and ICP: p > 0.05 TCD
- –
Middle cerebral artery (MCA) peak systolic velocity, MCA flow velocity and common carotid artery flow velocity showed a statistically significant correlation with ICP in severe TBI patients
|
Maissan et al., 20151212 Maissan IM, Dirven PJ, Haitsma IK, Hoeks SE, Gommers D, Stolker RJ. Ultrasonographic measured optic nerve sheath diameter as an accurate and quick monitor for changes in intracranial pressure. J Neurosurg 2015;123(03):743-747
|
Prospective observational study |
18 |
ONSD |
-
–
ONSD values and ICP: R2 = 0.80
-
–
Cutoff point ≥ 5.00 mm: sensitivity = 94% and specificity = 98%
-
–
AUC 0.99 (0.97–1.00) was found for detection of IH
|
Strumwasser et al., 20111313 Strumwasser A, Kwan RO, Yeung L, et al. Sonographic optic nerve sheath diameter as an estimate of intracranial pressure in adult trauma. J Surg Res 2011;170(02):265-271
|
Prospective observational study |
10 |
ONSD |
-
ONSD values and ICP in unilateral (R2 = 0.45, p < 0.01) and bilateral (R2 = 0.21, p = 0.01) lesions.
-
AUC = 0.36; p = 0.01
-
Sensitivity was 36%, specificity 38%, PPV 40%, the NPV 16% and the accuracy for estimating ICP with the ONSD was 37%.
|
Rajajee et al., 201144 Rajajee V, Vanaman M, Fletcher JJ, Jacobs TL. Optic nerve ultra-sound for the detection of raised intracranial pressure. Neurocrit Care 2011;15(03):506-515
|
Prospective observational study |
65 |
ONSD |
|
Soldatos et al., 200899 Soldatos T, Karakitsos D, Chatzimichail K, Papathanasiou M, Gouliamos A, Karabinis A. Optic nerve sonography in the diagnostic evaluation of adult brain injury. Crit Care 2008;12(03):R67
|
Prospective observational study |
76 |
ONSD |
-
ONSD and ICPi values: r = 0.68; p = 0.002
-
Best cutoff point: 5.7 mm – sensitivity = 74,1% and specificity = 100%
-
ONSD and estimated ICP (eICP):
o Severe brain injury: 6.1 ± 0.7 mm and 26.2 ± 8.7 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.0001
o Moderate brain injury: 4, 2 ± 1.2 mm and 12.0 ± 3.6 mmHg
o Control patients: 3.6 ± 0.6 mm and 10.3 ± 3.1 mmHg
-
–
Strong correlation between the values of ONSD, eICP (r = 0.80, p < 0.0001) and the neuroimaging scale (r = 0.82, p < 0.001)
|
Stevens et al., 20191010 Stevens AR, Su Z, Toman E, Belli A, Davies D. Optical pupillometry in traumatic brain injury: neurological pupil index and its relationship with intracranial pressure through significant event analysis. Brain Inj 2019;33(08):1032-1038
|
Prospective observational study |
41 |
Pupillometry |
|
Cardim et al., 20201616 Cardim D, Robba C, Czosnyka M, et al. Noninvasive Intracranial Pressure Estimation With Transcranial Doppler: A Prospective Observational Study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2020;32(04): 349-353
|
Prospective observational study |
100 |
TCD |
|
Rasulo et al., 20171515 Moraes FM, Silva GS. Noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring methods: a critical review. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2021;79(05): 437-446[Accessed 20 September 2022], pp. 437-446. Wu J, He W, Chen W, Zhu L. Research on simulation and experiment of noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring based on acoustoelasticity effects. Med Devices (Auckl). 2013;6:123-131
|
Prospective observational study |
20 |
TCD |
|
Robba et al., 201766 Robba C, Cardim D, Tajsic T, et al. Ultrasound non-invasive measurement of intracranial pressure in neurointensive care: A prospective observational study. PLoS Med 2017;14(07): e1002356
|
Prospective observational study |
41 |
ONSD TCD |
ONSD
TCD
|
Cardim et al., 20161717 Cardim D, Robba C, Donnelly J, et al. Prospective Study on Noninvasive Assessment of Intracranial Pressure in Traumatic Brain-Injured Patients: Comparison of Four Methods. J Neurotrauma 2016;33(08):792-802
|
Prospective observational study |
40 |
TCD |
− ICPtcd pulsatility index: o The best correlation with iICP, including spontaneous changes in ICP > 7 mmHg (R = 0.61) o The best efficacy for ICP dynamics monitoring |
Schmidt et al., 200577 Schmidt B, Bocklisch SF, Pässler M, Czosnyka M, Schwarze JJ, Klingelhöfer J. Fuzzy pattern classification of hemodynamic data can be used to determine noninvasive intracranial pressure. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2005;95:345-349
|
Prospective observational study |
103 |
TCD |
− FV and ABP comparative parameters could infer the ICP with a median absolute difference of 5.7 mmHg when compared to the invasive method. |
Ragauskas et al., 20053 |
Prospective observational study |
57 |
TCD |
− The difference in the ICP when comparing the 2 methods was 0.939 mmHg, suggesting the effectiveness of the noninvasive method. |
Schmidt et al., 200388 Schmidt B, Czosnyka M, Raabe A, et al. Adaptive noninvasive assessment of intracranial pressure and cerebral autoregulation. Stroke 2003;34(01):84-89
|
Prospective observational study |
145 |
TCD |
-
–
Mx and nMx: r = 0.90; p < 0.001.
-
–
PRx and nPRx: r = 0.62; p < 0.001.
-
–
The sensitivity of nMx to estimate Mx was 0.92, the specificity of Mx was 0.79 and the fuzzy values were 0.97 and 0.92.
-
–
The sensitivity of nPRx to estimate PRx was 0.61 and its specificity was 0.67.
-
–
ABP and FV signals cannot be evaluated alone to estimate nICP.
|
Czosnyka et al., 19981818 Czosnyka M, Matta BF, Smielewski P, Kirkpatrick PJ, Pickard JD. Cerebral perfusion pressure in head-injured patients: a noninva-sive assessment using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. J Neurosurg 1998;88(05):802-808
|
Prospective observational study |
96 |
TCD |
-
–
PPV of 94% for the detection of a low CPP (60 mmHg), with r = 0.73
-
–
Estimation error of less than 10 mmHg in 71% of the cases.
|
Mursch et al., 19951919 Mursch K, Vogelsang JP, Zimmerer B, Ludwig HC, Behnke J, Markakis E. Bedside measurement of the third ventricle’s diameter during episodes of arising intracranial pressure after head trauma. Using transcranial real-time sonography for a non-invasive examination of intracranial compensation mechanisms. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1995;1371-2, discussion 23-2419-23
|
Prospective observational study |
28 |
TCD |
|
Klingelhöfer et al., 19872020 Klingelhöfer J, Conrad B, Benecke R, Sander D. Intracranial flow patterns at increasing intracranial pressure. Klin Wochenschr 1987;65(12):542-545
|
Prospective observational study |
5 |
TCD |
-
–
Changes in the ICP significantly influenced flow patterns
-
–
TCD is a useful noninvasive method for gathering information regarding the development of ICP.
-
–
The study did not correlate in detail changes in flow patterns and ICP.
|
Herklots et al., 20172121 Herklots MW, Moudrous W, Oldenbeuving A, et al. Prospective Evaluation of Noninvasive HeadSense Intracranial Pressure Monitor in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Undergoing Invasive Intracranial Pressure Monitoring. World Neurosurg 2017; 106:557-562
|
Prospective observational study |
14 |
HeadSense monitor |
|
Zhao et al., 20051111 Zhao YL, Zhou JY, Zhu GH. Clinical experience with the noninvasive ICP monitoring system. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2005; 95:351-355
|
Prospective observational study |
16 |
FVEP |
|
Brasil et al., 20212626 Brasil S, Solla DJF, Nogueira RC, Teixeira MJ, Malbouisson LMS, Paiva WDS. A Novel Noninvasive Technique for Intracranial Pressure Waveform Monitoring in Critical Care. J Pers Med 2021;11(12):1302
|
Prospective observational study |
21 |
Brain compliance using ICPW (B4C monitor) |
-
–
B4C sensor measurements and ICP: P2/P1 ratio (r = 0.72) and TTP (r = 0.85)
-
–
The B4C P2/P1 ratio threshold of ≥ 1.1 resulted in AUC 0.77 (0.62–0.92), p < 0.001, sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.60) to detect IH
|
Robba et al., 20201414 Robba C, Pozzebon S, Moro B, Vincent JL, Creteur J, Taccone FS. Multimodal non-invasive assessment of intracranial hypertension: an observational study. Crit Care 2020;24(01):379
|
Prospective observational study |
30 |
ONSD PI eICP using TCD NPI using pupillometry |
ONSD
- –
AUC of 0.78 (0.62–0.95) to detect IH
- –
Cutoff point of ONSD > 5.3 mm: sensitivity = 67% and specificity = 73%
PI
- –
AUC of 0.79 (0.63–0.96) to detect IH
- –
Cutoff point of PI > 1.10: sensitivity = 61% and specificity = 80%
eICP using TCD
- –
AUC of 0.83 (CI 0.69–0.98) to detect IH
- –
Cutoff point was eICP > 20 mmHg: sensitivity = 67% and specificity = 87%.
NPI
- –
AUC was 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.83) to detect IH
- –
Cut-off point of NPI < 4.0: sensitivity = 61% and specificity = 73%
COMBINED METHODS
- –
All four methods: AUC 0.91 (0.80–1.00) to detect IH
- –
ONSD with eICP using TCD: AUC 0.92 (0.81–1.00)
|