Intracranial-to-Central Venous Pressure Gap Predicts the Responsiveness of ICP to PEEP in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

Li Hong Peng,Lin Ying Ning,Cheng Zhi Hui,Qu Wei,Zhang Liu,Li Qing Yun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.18109/v1
2019-01-01
Abstract:Abstract Background: Mechanical ventilation (MV) with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is commonly applied in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI). However, non-indicators to predict the influence of PEEP on intracranial pressure (ICP) prevent the optimal use of PEEP. As the central venous pressure (CVP) could act as an intermediary to transduce the pressure from PEEP to ICP, we set up a new indicators PICGap (representing the gap between the baseline ICP and baseline CVP). The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between PICGap and the ICP responsiveness to PEEP. Methods: Total 112 patients with sTBI undergoing MV were finally enrolled. ICP, CVP, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), static compliance of respiratory system (Cst), and end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (PetCO2) were recorded at initial level of PEEP (3 cmH2O) and adjusted levels of PEEP (15 cmH2O). PICGap was calculated by baseline ICP - baseline CVP (when PEEP=3 cmH2O). The patients enrolled were classified into either an ICP responder group or a non-responder group based on whether the increment of ICP when PEEP adjustment from 3 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O was greater than or less than 20% of baseline ICP. Parameters recorded above were compared between two groups and the prediction of ICP responsiveness to PEEP adjustment were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Results: Responder group had lower PICGap, lower baseline ICP, and higher baseline CVP compared with non-responder group. ROC analysis suggested that PICGap could act as a strongest predictive indicator for the ICP responsiveness to PEEP (AUC = 0.957, 95% CI: 0.918 - 0.996, p <0.001) compared with baseline ICP and baseline CVP, with a favorable sensitivity of 95.24% (95% CI: 86.91% - 98.70%) and specificity of 87.6% (95% CI: 75.76% - 94.27%) when the cut off value of 2.5mmHg was determined. Conclusion: The impact of PEEP on ICP depends on the GAP of between baseline ICP and baseline CVP, i.e. PICGap. The PICGap could be a potential predictor for ICP responsiveness to PEEP adjustment in patients with sTBI.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?