Search

Objective Multiple factors have been identified as causes of intracranial compliance impairment (ICCI) among patients with obesity. On the other hand, obesity has been linked with worst outcomes in COVID‐19. Thus, the hypothesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) conducing to cerebral hemodynamic disorders (CHD) able to worsen ICCI and play an additional role on prognosis determination for COVID‐19 among obese patients becomes suitable. Methods 50 cases of SARS by COVID‐19 were evaluated, for the presence of ICCI and cerebrovascular circulatory disturbances in correspondence with whether unfavorable outcomes (death or impossibility for mechanical ventilation weaning [MVW]) within 7 days after evaluation. The objective was to observe whether obese patients (BMI ≥ 30) disclosed worse outcomes and tests results compared with lean subjects with same clinical background. Results 23 (46%) patients among 50 had obesity. ICCI was verified in 18 (78%) obese, whereas in 13 (48%) of 27 non‐obese (p = 0,029). CHD were not significantly different between groups, despite being high prevalent in both. 69% unfavorable outcomes were observed among obese and 44% for lean subjects (p = 0,075). Conclusion In the present study, intracranial compliance impairment was significantly more observed among obese subjects and may have contributed for SARS COVID‐19 worsen prognosis.

Background: Morphological alterations in intracranial pressure (ICP) pulse waveform (ICPW) secondary to intracranial hypertension (ICP &gt, 20 mmHg) and a reduction in intracranial compliance (ICC) are well known indicators of neurological severity. The exclusive exploration of modifications in ICPW after either the loss of skull integrity or surgical procedures for intracranial hypertension resolution is not a common approach studied. The present study aimed to assess the morphological alterations in ICPW among neurocritical care patients with skull defects and decompressive craniectomy (DC) by comparing the variations in ICPW features according to elevations in mean ICP values. Methods: Patients requiring ICP monitoring because of acute brain injury were included. A continuous record of 10 min-length for the beat-by-beat analysis of ICPW was performed, with ICP elevation produced by means of ultrasound-guided manual internal jugular vein compression at the end of the record. ICPW features (peak amplitude ratio (P2/P1), time interval to pulse peak (TTP) and pulse amplitude) were counterweighed between baseline and compression periods. Results were distributed for three groups: intact skull (exclusive burr hole for ICP monitoring), craniotomy/large fractures (group 2) or DC (group 3). Results: 57 patients were analyzed. A total of 21 (36%) presented no skull defects, 21 (36%) belonged to group 2, whereas 15 (26%) had DC. ICP was not significantly different between groups: ±15.11 for intact, 15.33 for group 2 and ±20.81 mmHg for group 3, with ICP-induced elevation also similar between groups (p = 0.56). Significant elevation was observed for the P2/P1 ratio for groups 1 and 2, whereas a reduction was observed in group 3 (elevation of ±0.09 for groups 1 and 2, but a reduction of 0.03 for group 3, p = 0.01), and no significant results were obtained for TTP and pulse amplitudes. Conclusion: In the present study, intracranial pressure pulse waveform analysis indicated that intracranial compliance was significantly more impaired among decompressive craniectomy patients, although ICPW indicated DC to be protective for further influences of ICP elevations over the brain. The analysis of ICPW seems to be an alternative to real-time ICC assessment.

Background: Monitoring patients with acute brain injury is crucial in neurocritical care. Intracranial compliance (ICC) has been studied to complement the interpretation of intracranial pressure (ICP) and help the neurocritical care team to anticipate brain function deterioration. ICC has been found to be related to compensatory mechanisms that maintain the stability of ICP (e.g., the higher the compensation, the higher the compliance of intracranial content to adapt to changes in volume and pressure). However, ICC has not been properly translated to clinical practice and has remained a critical technology gap in clinical neuroscience. The objective of this study is to establish a protocol for a scoping review to map the key concepts of ICC in the literature. In addition, this study is designed to characterize the relationship between ICC and ICP, as well as systematically describe the outcomes that are used to assess ICC, considering both the invasive and noninvasive methods.Methods: The scoping review protocol will be conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute’s recommendation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews will be followed. Animals and humans are considered as the population to be investigated. No age criteria or health condition will be considered. ICC, as well as the relationship between ICC and ICP, will be considered as a core concept in this review. Information will be screened based on the context of neurocritical care. Several databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Grey Literature Report, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane Clinical Trials) will be searched to identify literature using a combination of keywords and descriptors, and there will be no restriction on the time frame. Data will be extracted systematically by the research team and the results will be summarized.Discussion: No systematic review has mapped the concepts of ICC and its relationship with ICP. Providing the key concepts of ICC and the methods of assessment might show its possible applications in clinical practice and the gaps in research.Systematic review registration: Currently, scoping review protocols are not eligible for registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review database.

We validated a new noninvasive tool (B4C) to assess intracranial pressure waveform (ICPW) morphology in a set of neurocritical patients, correlating the data with ICPW obtained from invasive catheter monitoring. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were consecutively evaluated using the B4C sensor. Ultrasound-guided manual internal jugular vein (IJV) compression was performed to elevate ICP from the baseline. ICP values, amplitudes, and time intervals (P2/P1 ratio and time-to-peak [TTP]) between the ICP and B4C waveform peaks were analyzed. Results: Among 41 patients, the main causes for ICP monitoring included traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and stroke. Bland-Altman’s plot indicated agreement between the ICPW parameters obtained using both techniques. The strongest Pearson’s correlation for P2/P1 and TTP was observed among patients with no cranial damage (r = 0.72 and 0.85, respectively) in detriment of those who have undergone craniotomies or craniectomies. P2/P1 values of 1 were equivalent between the two techniques (area under the receiver operator curve [AUROC], 0.9) whereas B4C cut-off 1.2 was predictive of intracranial hypertension (AUROC 0.9, p < 000.1 for ICP > 20 mmHg). Conclusion: B4C provided biometric amplitude ratios correlated with ICPW variation morphology and is useful for noninvasive critical care monitoring.

Introduction: One of the possible mechanisms by which the new coronavirus (SARS-Cov2) could induce brain damage is the impairment of cerebrovascular hemodynamics (CVH) and intracranial compliance (ICC) due to the elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP). The main objective of this study was to assess the presence of CVH and ICC alterations in patients with COVID-19 and evaluate their association with short-term clinical outcomes. Methods: Fifty consecutive critically ill COVID-19 patients were studied with transcranial Doppler (TCD) and non-invasive monitoring of ICC. Subjects were included upon ICU admission, CVH was evaluated using mean flow velocities in the middle cerebral arteries (mCBFV), pulsatility index (PI), and estimated cerebral perfusion pressure (eCPP), while ICC was assessed by using the P2/P1 ratio of the non-invasive ICP curve. A CVH/ICC score was computed using all these variables. The primary composite outcome was unsuccessful in weaning from respiratory support or death on day 7 (defined as UO). Results: At the first assessment (n = 50), only the P2/P1 ratio (median 1.20 [IQRs 1.00–1.28] vs. 1.00 [0.88–1.16], p = 0.03) and eICP (14 [11–25] vs. 11 [7–15] mmHg, p = 0.01) were significantly higher among patients with an unfavorable outcome (UO) than others. Patients with UO had a significantly higher CVH/ICC score (9 [8–12] vs. 6 [5–7], p &lt, 0.001) than those with a favorable outcome, the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for CVH/ICC score to predict UO was 0.86 (95% CIs 0.75–0.97), a score &gt, 8.5 had 63 (46–77)% sensitivity and 87 (62–97)% specificity to predict UO. For those patients undergoing a second assessment (n = 29), after a median of 11 (5–31) days, all measured variables were similar between the two time-points. No differences in the measured variables between ICU non-survivors (n = 30) and survivors were observed. Conclusions: ICC impairment and CVH disturbances are often present in COVID-19 severe illness and could accurately predict an early poor outcome.