Evidence Hub

Neurological Pupil Index and Intracranial Hypertension in Patients With Acute Brain Injury: A Secondary Analysis of the ORANGE Study

Matteo Petrosino, Elisa Gouvêa Bogossian, Paola Rebora, Stefania Galimberti, R. Chesnut, Pierre Bouzat, M. Oddo, F. Taccone et al.

JAMA Neurology, 2024

514 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Importance

Invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) is the standard of care in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) with impaired consciousness. The Neurological Pupil Index (NPi) obtained by automated pupillometry is promising for noninvasively estimating ICP.

Objectives

To evaluate the association between repeated NPi and invasive ICP values.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of the Outcome Prognostication of Acute Brain Injury With the Neurological Pupil Index (ORANGE), a multicenter, prospective, observational study of patients with ABI performed from October 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022, with follow-up at 6 months after ABI. The ORANGE study was performed at neurologic intensive care units of tertiary hospitals in Europe and North America. In ORANGE, 514 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support were admitted to the intensive care unit after ABI.

Exposure

Invasive ICP monitoring and automated pupillometry assessment every 4 hours during the first 7 days, considered as a standard of care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association between ICP and NPi values over time, using bayesian joint models, with linear and logistic mixed-effects longitudinal submodels.

Results

The study included 318 adult patients (median [IQR] age, 58 [43-69] years; 187 [58.8%] male) who required intensive care unit admission, intubation, and mechanical ventilatory support due to acute traumatic brain injury (n = 133 [41.8%]), intracerebral hemorrhage (n =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 514 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free