Accuracy of Manual Intracranial Pressure Recording Compared to a Computerized High-Resolution System: A CENTER-TBI Analysis.

Background: Monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is crucial in the management of the patient with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). In several institutions ICP and CPP are summarized hourly and entered manually on bedside charts; these data have been used in large observational and interventional trials. However, ICP and CPP may change rapidly and frequently, so data recorded in medical charts might underestimate actual ICP and CPP shifts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual data annotation for proper capturing of ICP and CPP. For this aim, we (1) compared end-hour ICP and CPP values manually recorded (MR) with values recorded continuously by computerized high-resolution (HR) systems and (2) analyzed whether MR ICP and MR CPP are reliable indicators of the burden of intracranial hypertension and low CPP.

Methods: One hundred patients were included. First, we compared the MR data with the values stored in the computerized system during the first 7 days after admission. For this point-to-point analysis, we calculated the difference between end-hour MR and HR ICP and CPP. Then we analyzed the burden of high ICP (> 20 mm Hg) and low CPP (< 60 mm Hg) measured by the computerized system, in which continuous data were stored, compared with the pressure-time dose based on end-hour measurements.

Results: The mean difference between MR and HR end-hour values was 0.02 mm Hg for ICP (SD 3.86 mm Hg) and 1.54 mm Hg for CPP (SD 8.81 mm Hg). ICP > 20 mm Hg and CPP < 60 mm Hg were not detected by MR in 1.6% and 5.8% of synchronized measurements, respectively. Analysis of the pathological ICP and CPP throughout the recording, however, indicated that calculations based on manual recording seriously underestimated the ICP and CPP burden (in 42% and 28% of patients, respectively).

Conclusions: Manual entries fairly represent end-hour HR ICP and CPP. However, compared with a computerized system, they may prove inadequate, with a serious risk of underestimation of the ICP and CPP burden.