Evidence Hub

The Neurological Pupil index for outcome prognostication in people with acute brain injury (ORANGE): a prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study

M. Oddo, F. Taccone, Matteo Petrosino, R. Badenes, Aaron Blandino Ortiz, P. Bouzat, A. Caricato, R. Chesnut et al.

Lancet Neurology, 2023

68 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Improving the prognostication of acute brain injury is a key element of critical care. Standard assessment includes pupillary light reactivity testing with a hand-held light source, but findings are interpreted subjectively; automated pupillometry might be more precise and reproducible. We aimed to assess the association of the Neurological Pupil index (NPi)-a quantitative measure of pupillary reactivity computed by automated pupillometry-with outcomes of patients with severe non-anoxic acute brain injury.

METHODS

ORANGE is a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study at 13 hospitals in eight countries in Europe and North America. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit after traumatic brain injury, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, or intracerebral haemorrhage were eligible for the study. Patients underwent automated infrared pupillometry assessment every 4 h during the first 7 days after admission to compute NPi, with values ranging from 0 to 5 (with abnormal NPi being <3). The co-primary outcomes of the study were neurological outcome (assessed with the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOSE]) and mortality at 6 months. We used logistic regression to model the association between NPi and poor neurological outcome (GOSE ≤4) at 6 months and Cox regression to model the relation of NPi with 6-month mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04490005.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 1, 2020, and May 3, 2022, 514 patients (224 with traumatic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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.

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