PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 26, 2026Critical Care Medicine0 citations

1400: Association Between Icp Monitoring and Survival in Pediatric Severe Tbi

View Full Paper
KJKelsey Johnson-NiblingJPJonathan H. PelletierCPChristopher Page-Goertz

Key Points

  • This study aims to investigate whether the use of ICP monitoring affects mortality rates in pediatric patients with severe TBI.
  • Retrospective cohort analysis using data from the Virtual Pediatric Systems (VPS) database.
  • Included patients younger than 18 years with severe TBI and lowest GCS of ≤ 8.
  • Patients without ICP monitoring were excluded.
  • 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity matching was performed to compare mortality outcomes.
  • Mortality and neurologic outcomes were reported post-matching.
  • Out of 9,335 admissions, 26.2% had ICP monitors.
  • No correlation found between center-level ICP monitoring rates and overall mortality (p = 0.41).
  • Patients with ICP monitors had a significantly lower GCS and a higher percentage of new neurologic disability post-treatment.
  • The marginal risk difference for death was -2.9% for those with ICP monitors (95% CI -0.7%, -5.0%).

Abstract

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest the use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors in pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Surveys indicate that ICP monitoring practices vary by hospital. We aimed to determine whether ICP monitoring is associated with decreased mortality among pediatric patients with severe TBI. Methods: This retrospective cohort extracted clinical and demographic data from the Virtual Pediatric Systems (VPS) database. Included patients were < 18 years with STAR codes for TBI and lowest recorded GCS of ≤ 8 between 2010-2024. Patients from centers without ICP monitors were excluded. ICP monitoring practices and patient demographics were described using summary statistics. 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity matching with clustering on hospital was performed and the average effect of ICP monitor placement on mortality was reported. Results: There were 9,335 included admissions across 96 PICUs between 1/1/2010-12/31/2024 in which 2,449/9,335 (26.2%) had ICP monitors. Center-level ICP monitoring ranged from 0.5% to 61.5%. There was no correlation between center-level ICP monitoring and unadjusted center-level mortality (p = 0.41). Patients with ICP monitors were older (8 3-14 versus 6 2-13 years, p < 0.001) and had lower GCS (3 3 – 6 versus 6 3 – 7, p < 0.001), a lower proportion of reactive pupils (60.2% versus 68.4%, p < 0.001), and a higher PIM2 probability of death (4.9% 3.3% – 23.1% versus 4.1% 3.0% – 34.3%, p < 0.001). 4,188/9,254 (45.2%) encounters were matched. The overall standardized mean difference before and after matching was 0.64 and 0.02, respectively. The marginal risk difference for death in patients treated with ICP monitors was -2.9% (95% CI -0.7%, -5.0%), and the marginal risk ratio was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84, 0.98). However, after matching, patients treated with ICP monitors had a higher proportion of new neurologic disability (Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category 2-5; 59.6% 407/683 versus 33.3% 234/701, p < 0.001). Conclusions: ICP monitoring was associated with reduced mortality in severe TBI in this study, but a higher proportion of new neurologic disability. Future studies should examine heterogeneity of treatment effect in subpopulations by age, mechanism, and imaging findings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Johnson-Nibling et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c4ccaffdc3bde448918150https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0001187596.96819.b2
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper