Invasive and noninvasive means of measuring intracranial pressure: a review

Measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) can be invaluable in the management of critically ill patients. Cerebrospinal fluid is produced by the choroid plexus in the brain ventricles (a set of communicating chambers), after which it circulates through the different ventricles and exits into the subarachnoid space around the brain, where it is reabsorbed into the venous system. If the fluid does not drain out of the brain or get reabsorbed, the ICP increases, which may lead to brain damage or death. ICP elevation accompanied by dilatation of the cerebral ventricles is termed hydrocephalus, whereas ICP elevation accompanied by normal or small ventricles is termed idiopathic intracranial hypertension. OBJECTIVE: We performed a comprehensive literature review on how to measure ICP invasively and noninvasively. APPROACH: This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of current invasive and noninvasive approaches. MAIN RESULTS: Invasive methods remain the most accurate at measuring ICP, but they are prone to a variety of complications including infection, hemorrhage and neurological deficits. Ventricular catheters remain the gold standard but also carry the highest risk of complications, including difficult or incorrect placement. Direct telemetric intraparenchymal ICP monitoring devices are a good alternative. Noninvasive methods for measuring and evaluating ICP have been developed and classified in five broad categories, but have not been reliable enough to use on a routine basis. These methods include the fluid dynamic, ophthalmic, otic, and electrophysiologic methods, as well as magnetic resonance imaging, transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TCD), cerebral blood flow velocity, near-infrared spectroscopy, transcranial time-of-flight, spontaneous venous pulsations, venous ophthalmodynamometry, optical coherence tomography of retina, optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) assessment, pupillometry constriction, sensing tympanic membrane displacement, analyzing otoacoustic emissions/acoustic measure, transcranial acoustic signals, visual-evoked potentials, electroencephalography, skull vibrations, brain tissue resonance and the jugular vein. SIGNIFICANCE: This review provides a current perspective of invasive and noninvasive ICP measurements, along with a sense of their relative strengths, drawbacks and areas for further improvement. At present, none of the noninvasive methods demonstrates sufficient accuracy and ease of use while allowing continuous monitoring in routine clinical use. However, they provide a realizable ICP measurement in specific patients especially when invasive monitoring is contraindicated or unavailable. Among all noninvasive ICP measurement methods, ONSD and TCD are attractive and may be useful in selected settings though they cannot be used as invasive ICP measurement substitutes. For a sufficiently accurate and universal continuous ICP monitoring method/device, future research and developments are needed to integrate further refinements of the existing methods, combine telemetric sensors and/or technologies, and validate large numbers of clinical studies on relevant patient populations.