Invasive ICP Monitoring in ICU: Is It Still Relevant?

Indications in TBI and Beyond, Non-invasive Alternatives, and Real-world Risk-Benefit Analysis

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has been a cornerstone of neurocritical care for over five decades. However, recent evidence challenges its universal application, particularly following the BEST TRIP trial results. This review examines current evidence for invasive ICP monitoring in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other neurological conditions, explores emerging non-invasive alternatives including optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) ultrasonography and transcranial Doppler (TCD), and provides a contemporary risk-benefit analysis for real-world practice. While invasive monitoring remains valuable in select populations, a nuanced, individualized approach incorporating non-invasive techniques may optimize patient outcomes while minimizing complications.

Keywords: intracranial pressure, traumatic brain injury, neurocritical care, optic nerve sheath diameter, transcranial Doppler

Introduction

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has evolved from experimental curiosity to clinical standard since Guillaume and Janny first described continuous ventricular pressure monitoring in 1951[1]. The Monro-Kellie doctrine provides the physiological foundation: within the rigid skull, increases in brain volume, cerebrospinal fluid, or blood must be compensated by decreases in other compartments to maintain normal ICP (<15 mmHg in adults)[2].

Despite widespread adoption, the evidence supporting routine invasive ICP monitoring has faced increasing scrutiny. The landmark BEST TRIP trial in 2012 questioned the universal benefit of invasive monitoring in severe TBI[3], while technological advances have introduced promising non-invasive alternatives. This review critically examines the current role of invasive ICP monitoring across neurological conditions and explores the emerging landscape of multimodal monitoring.

Historical Perspective and Evolution

The journey from experimental technique to clinical standard reflects decades of technological refinement. Early ventricular catheters gave way to intraparenchymal monitors with improved safety profiles. The development of fiber-optic and microstrain gauge sensors enabled more accurate, drift-resistant measurements[4]. However, this technological progress occurred largely without robust randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence—a gap that would later prove clinically significant.

The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, first published in 1995 and subsequently updated, established ICP monitoring as a Level II recommendation for severe TBI patients[5]. These recommendations were based primarily on observational studies and expert consensus, reflecting the ethical challenges of conducting RCTs in critically ill patients.

Current Evidence in Traumatic Brain Injury

The BEST TRIP Trial: A Paradigm Shift

The Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials in Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) study represents the most significant challenge to routine invasive ICP monitoring[3]. This multicenter RCT randomized 324 patients with severe TBI to either invasive ICP monitoring or clinical examination plus imaging-based care. The primary finding—no difference in 6-month functional outcomes—sent shockwaves through the neurocritical care community.

Pearl: The BEST TRIP trial's null result doesn't invalidate ICP monitoring but rather questions its universal application. The study population had relatively good baseline characteristics (median age 28 years, high proportion of focal lesions), potentially limiting generalizability to typical ICU populations.

However, several limitations warrant consideration. The control group received intensive, protocol-driven care that may not reflect standard practice globally. Additionally, the study was underpowered for mortality analysis and excluded many patients who might benefit most from monitoring[6].

Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews

Recent meta-analyses provide mixed signals. Shen et al. (2016) analyzed 13 studies involving 57,001 patients and found reduced mortality with ICP monitoring (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.85)[7]. Conversely, the Cochrane review by Cnossen et al. (2017) identified insufficient evidence to support routine monitoring[8].

Oyster: Don't dismiss older observational studies entirely. The consistent association between ICP monitoring and improved outcomes in large databases may reflect unmeasured confounders, but it could also indicate genuine benefit in appropriately selected patients.

Current Guidelines and Recommendations

The 2016 Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines reflect this evolving evidence base, downgrading ICP monitoring from a Level II to Level IIB recommendation[9]. The guidelines now emphasize individualized decision-making based on:

GCS ≤8 with abnormal CT scan
GCS ≤8 with normal CT scan plus two of: age >40 years, motor posturing, systolic BP <90 mmHg

Clinical Hack: Consider the "BEST TRIP Exception Rule": patients who would have been excluded from BEST TRIP (e.g., immediate surgical lesions, refractory intracranial hypertension, penetrating injury) may derive the greatest benefit from invasive monitoring.

Beyond TBI: Expanding Indications

Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)

ICP monitoring in SAH serves dual purposes: managing acute hydrocephalus and detecting delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI). Elevated ICP often precedes clinical deterioration, potentially enabling earlier intervention[10]. The combination of ICP and brain tissue oxygen monitoring may improve detection of DCI compared to clinical assessment alone[11].

Pearl: In SAH patients with external ventricular drains, ICP waveform analysis can provide early warning of shunt malfunction or catheter obstruction before clinical deterioration occurs.

Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH)

The role of ICP monitoring in ICH remains controversial. The STICH trials failed to demonstrate benefit from surgical evacuation, but post-hoc analyses suggest potential benefit in patients with elevated ICP[12]. Current evidence supports monitoring in ICH patients with:

Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8
Evidence of mass effect or midline shift
Intraventricular extension

Hepatic Encephalopathy

In acute liver failure with grade 3-4 hepatic encephalopathy, ICP monitoring can guide timing of liver transplantation and optimize perioperative management. However, the high risk of bleeding complications requires careful patient selection[13].

Oyster: The bleeding risk in hepatic encephalopathy isn't absolute. Pre-procedural correction of coagulopathy with fresh frozen plasma or prothrombin complex concentrates can enable safe monitor placement when clinically indicated.

Refractory Status Epilepticus

ICP monitoring in super-refractory status epilepticus helps distinguish seizure-related from other causes of neurological deterioration. However, the decision should be individualized based on seizure control and overall prognosis[14].

Non-invasive Alternatives: The Future of ICP Assessment?

Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter (ONSD) Ultrasonography

ONSD measurement exploits the anatomical continuity between intracranial and orbital subarachnoid spaces. Multiple studies demonstrate strong correlation between ONSD and invasive ICP measurements, with optimal cutoff values ranging from 5.0-6.0 mm depending on population and measurement technique[15,16].

Technical Pearls for ONSD:

Use a 7.5-13 MHz linear probe
Measure 3 mm behind the optic disc
Obtain measurements in both transverse and sagittal planes
Average bilateral measurements
Consider body weight correction in pediatric patients

Limitations of ONSD:

Operator-dependent technique requiring training
Reduced accuracy in orbital pathology
Limited ability to detect rapid ICP changes
Variable inter-observer reliability

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) Ultrasonography

TCD-derived parameters, particularly the pulsatility index (PI), correlate with ICP through the relationship between cerebral perfusion pressure and flow velocity patterns[17]. The PI = (Vs - Vd)/Vm formula (where Vs = systolic velocity, Vd = diastolic velocity, Vm = mean velocity) provides a non-invasive estimate of downstream resistance.

TCD Monitoring Hacks:

PI >1.4 suggests elevated ICP (>20 mmHg) with ~80% sensitivity
Absent diastolic flow indicates severely compromised perfusion
Use bilateral measurements to account for asymmetric pathology
Combine with optic nerve sheath diameter for improved accuracy

Advanced TCD Applications:

Critical closing pressure calculation: CrCP = MAP × (Vd/Vm)
Cerebral autoregulation assessment using correlation coefficients
Emboli detection in cardiac surgery patients

Pupillometry

Automated pupillometry provides objective assessment of pupillary reactivity, which correlates with intracranial compliance and outcome in brain-injured patients[18]. The Neurological Pupil Index (NPi) ranges from 0-5, with values <3 indicating abnormal reactivity.

Clinical Integration Pearl: Combine NPi trends with other non-invasive markers. A declining NPi despite stable clinical examination may herald impending deterioration.

Emerging Technologies

Several promising technologies are under investigation:

Two-depth Transcranial Doppler (2d-TCD): Measures flow at different depths to estimate ICP non-invasively[19].

Tympanic Membrane Displacement (TMD): Exploits communication between middle ear and intracranial space via cochlear aqueduct[20].

MRI-based Techniques: Phase-contrast MRI can quantify CSF flow dynamics and estimate ICP[21].

Multimodal Monitoring: Beyond Pressure

Brain Tissue Oxygen Monitoring (PbtO2)

PbtO2 monitoring provides complementary information about cerebral oxygenation independent of ICP. The BOOST-II trial demonstrated feasibility of PbtO2-guided therapy, though larger outcome trials are needed[22]. Target PbtO2 >15-20 mmHg is associated with improved outcomes.

Hack: Use the ICP/PbtO2 combination to guide therapy: elevated ICP with normal PbtO2 may respond to osmotic agents, while normal ICP with low PbtO2 suggests need for hemodynamic optimization.

Cerebral Microdialysis

Microdialysis enables real-time monitoring of cerebral metabolism through measurement of glucose, lactate, pyruvate, and other metabolites. Elevated lactate/pyruvate ratio (>25-40) indicates cellular distress regardless of perfusion pressure[23].

Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS)

NIRS provides continuous monitoring of regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2). While less specific than PbtO2, NIRS offers the advantages of being non-invasive and providing bilateral monitoring[24].

Complications and Risk Assessment

Infection Risk

The risk of monitor-related infection varies by device type and insertion technique. A systematic review by Holloway et al. reported infection rates of 1-27% for ventricular catheters versus 0-1.4% for intraparenchymal monitors[25].

Risk Reduction Strategies:

Use strict sterile technique during insertion
Consider antibiotic-impregnated catheters
Minimize manipulation of monitoring systems
Remove monitors when no longer clinically indicated
Consider prophylactic antibiotics in high-risk patients

Hemorrhage

Insertion-related hemorrhage occurs in 1-9% of patients, with clinically significant bleeding in <2%. Risk factors include coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, and concurrent anticoagulation[26].

Bleeding Prevention Hack: Check coagulation parameters before insertion. For urgent monitoring in coagulopathic patients, consider point-of-care testing (TEG/ROTEM) to guide targeted correction.

Monitor Malfunction and Drift

Intraparenchymal monitors may experience drift over time, particularly fiber-optic devices. Regular calibration checks and correlation with clinical findings are essential[27].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Economic evaluations of ICP monitoring remain limited. Hailer et al. (2005) estimated cost savings of €15,000-25,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained through ICP monitoring in severe TBI[28]. However, these analyses predate the BEST TRIP trial and may overestimate benefit.

Real-world Economic Pearl: Consider institutional case mix when evaluating cost-effectiveness. Centers treating predominantly young trauma patients may derive greater benefit than those with older, more comorbid populations.

Decision-Making Framework: A Practical Approach

Patient Selection Criteria

Strong Indications for Invasive Monitoring:

Severe TBI with refractory intracranial hypertension
Post-operative monitoring after craniotomy
SAH with hydrocephalus or high bleeding grade
Inability to perform reliable neurological assessments (sedated, paralyzed)
Clinical trials requiring precise ICP measurement

Relative Indications:

Moderate TBI with risk factors for deterioration
ICH with mass effect but salvageable neurological function
Acute liver failure awaiting transplantation
Super-refractory status epilepticus

Limited/No Indication:

Mild TBI with normal imaging
End-stage neurological disease with poor prognosis
Significant coagulopathy without correction options
Goals of care inconsistent with aggressive intervention

Integration with Non-invasive Methods

A tiered approach may optimize resource utilization:

Tier 1: Non-invasive screening (ONSD, TCD, pupillometry) for all at-risk patients

Tier 2: Invasive monitoring for patients with abnormal non-invasive parameters and potential for intervention

Tier 3: Multimodal monitoring (ICP + PbtO2 ± microdialysis) for research protocols or refractory cases

Regional and Resource Considerations

The applicability of invasive ICP monitoring varies globally based on available resources, expertise, and case mix. The BEST TRIP trial was conducted in South American centers with limited neurosurgical resources, potentially explaining the effectiveness of imaging-based protocols[3].

Adaptation Strategies for Resource-Limited Settings:

Emphasize non-invasive monitoring techniques
Develop standardized protocols for imaging-based management
Train nursing staff in non-invasive assessment methods
Consider telemedicine consultation for complex cases

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Ongoing Clinical Trials

Several studies are addressing knowledge gaps in ICP monitoring:

SYNAPSE-ICU: Comparing standard care versus ICP/PbtO2-guided therapy in TBI CENTER-TBI: Large observational study examining ICP monitoring practices across Europe NICER: Evaluating cost-effectiveness of multimodal monitoring

Artificial Intelligence Applications

Machine learning algorithms show promise for:

Automated ICP waveform analysis
Prediction of intracranial hypertension episodes
Integration of multimodal monitoring data
Personalized treatment recommendations[29]

Biomarker Integration

Serum and CSF biomarkers may complement monitoring data:

S100B and NSE for neuronal injury assessment
Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for astrocytic damage
Neurofilament light chain for axonal injury[30]

Clinical Pearls and Practical Recommendations

Insertion Pearls

Frontal approach: Kocher's point (11 cm posterior from nasion, 3 cm lateral to midline) minimizes eloquent area risk
Depth control: Advance 6-7 cm in adults to reach white matter
Angle technique: Perpendicular to skull surface, aimed toward ipsilateral medial canthus

Interpretation Hacks

Waveform analysis: P2 > P1 amplitude suggests reduced compliance
CPP calculation: Maintain >60 mmHg, but individualize based on autoregulation
Plateau waves: Sustained ICP >50 mmHg for >5 minutes indicates severely compromised compliance

Management Oysters

Hyperosmolar therapy: Mannitol vs. hypertonic saline choice should consider volume status and electrolyte balance
Barbiturate coma: Reserve for refractory ICP with preserved autoregulation
Decompressive craniectomy: Consider early in young patients with malignant edema

Conclusions

Invasive ICP monitoring remains a valuable tool in neurocritical care, but its application requires careful patient selection and integration with emerging non-invasive techniques. The BEST TRIP trial challenged routine monitoring but shouldn't be interpreted as evidence against all ICP monitoring. Instead, it emphasizes the need for individualized, protocol-driven care.

The future likely lies in multimodal approaches combining invasive and non-invasive methods, artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation, and personalized medicine based on patient-specific factors. As non-invasive technologies mature and demonstrate clinical validity, they may assume greater roles in screening and monitoring, reserving invasive techniques for patients most likely to benefit.

Clinicians must balance the potential benefits of ICP monitoring against associated risks while considering available resources and expertise. A nuanced approach, guided by evolving evidence and technological advances, will optimize outcomes for critically ill neurological patients.

References

Guillaume J, Janny P. Continuous intracranial manometry; importance of the method and first results. Rev Neurol (Paris). 1951;84(2):131-142.
Mokri B. The Monro-Kellie hypothesis: applications in CSF volume depletion. Neurology. 2001;56(12):1746-1748.
Chesnut RM, Temkin N, Carney N, et al. A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(26):2471-2481.
Zhong J, Dujovny M, Park HK, et al. Advances in ICP monitoring techniques. Neurol Res. 2003;25(4):339-350.
Bratton SL, Chestnut RM, Ghajar J, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. VIII. Intracranial pressure thresholds. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24 Suppl 1:S55-S58.
Hawryluk GWJ, Rubiano AM, Totten AM, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: 2020 Update of the Decompressive Craniectomy Recommendations. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(3):427-434.
Shen L, Wang Z, Su Z, et al. Effects of intracranial pressure monitoring on mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168901.
Cnossen MC, Huijben JA, van der Jagt M, et al. Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):233.
Carney N, Totten AM, O'Reilly C, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Fourth Edition. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(1):6-15.
Rosen DS, Macdonald RL. Subarachnoid hemorrhage grading scales: a systematic review. Neurocrit Care. 2005;2(2):110-118.
Bohman LE, Heuer GG, Macyszyn L, et al. Medical management of compromised brain oxygen in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2011;14(2):157-167.
Mendelow AD, Gregson BA, Fernandes HM, et al. Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haematomas (STICH): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9457):387-397.
Vaquero J, Fontana RJ, Larson AM, et al. Complications and use of intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute liver failure and severe encephalopathy. Liver Transpl. 2005;11(12):1581-1589.
Brophy GM, Bell R, Claassen J, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17(1):3-23.
Robba C, Santori G, Czosnyka M, et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter measured sonographically as non-invasive estimator of intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(8):1284-1294.
Dubourg J, Javouhey E, Geeraerts T, et al. Ultrasonography of optic nerve sheath diameter for detection of raised intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(7):1059-1068.
Bellner J, Romner B, Reinstrup P, et al. Transcranial Doppler sonography pulsatility index (PI) reflects intracranial pressure (ICP). Surg Neurol. 2004;62(1):45-51.
Chen JW, Gombart ZJ, Rogers S, et al. Pupillometry and automated pupillary light reflex for early detection of intracranial hypertension. Neurocrit Care. 2011;15(3):405-411.
Schmidt B, Klingelhofer J, Schwarze JJ, et al. Noninvasive prediction of intracranial pressure curves using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography and blood pressure curves. Stroke. 1997;28(12):2465-2472.
Ueno T, Ballard RE, Macias BR, et al. Cranial and cervical venous flow and volume changes during head-down tilt. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;90(5-6):527-534.
Alperin N, Sivaramakrishnan A, Lichtor T. Magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of cerebrospinal fluid and blood flow as indicators of intracranial compliance in patients with Chiari malformation. J Neurosurg. 2005;103(1):46-52.
Okonkwo DO, Shutter LA, Moore C, et al. Brain oxygen optimization in severe traumatic brain injury phase-II: a phase II randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):1907-1914.
Hillered L, Vespa PM, Hovda DA. Translational neurochemical research in acute human brain injury: the current status and potential future for cerebral microdialysis. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22(1):3-41.
Zweifel C, Castellani G, Czosnyka M, et al. Continuous assessment of cerebral autoregulation with near-infrared spectroscopy in adults after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2010;41(9):1963-1968.
Holloway KL, Barnes T, Choi S, et al. Ventriculostomy infections: the effect of monitoring duration and catheter exchange in 584 patients. J Neurosurg. 1996;85(3):419-424.
Sahuquillo J, Poca MA, Arribas M, et al. Interhemispheric supratentorial intracranial pressure gradients in head-injured patients: are they clinically important? J Neurosurg. 1999;90(1):16-26.
Piper I, Barnes A, Smith D, et al. The Camino intracranial pressure sensor: is it optimal technology? An internal audit with a review of current intracranial pressure monitoring technologies. Neurosurgery. 2001;49(5):1158-1165.
Hailer YD, Bode K, Bajbouj M, et al. CHARLS research team. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of intracranial pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(3):203-210.
Zeiler FA, Donnelly J, Calviello L, et al. Pressure autoregulation measurement techniques in adult traumatic brain injury, part I: a scoping review of intermittent/semi-intermittent methods. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(23):3207-3223.
Shahim P, Gren M, Liman V, et al. Serum neurofilament light protein predicts clinical outcome in traumatic brain injury. Sci Rep. 2016;6:36791.

Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Funding No specific funding was received for this work.

Friday, July 18, 2025