• DaiWai M Olson, Stefany Ortega Peréz, Jonathan Ramsay, Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao, Jose I Suarez, Molly McNett, and Venkatesh Aiyagari.
• UT Southwestern Medical Center, University of Texas Southwestern, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-8897, USA. DaiWai.Olson@UTSouthwestern.edu.
• Neurocrit Care. 2019 Apr 1; 30 (2): 239243239-243.

BackgroundIntracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is fundamental for neurocritical care patient management. For many years, ventricular and parenchymal devices have been available for this aim. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature comparing ICP recordings via an intraventricular catheter or an intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter.MethodsLiterature search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus was performed in which manuscripts discussed both ICP monitoring via an intraventricular catheter and ICP monitoring through intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. Keywords and MeSH terms used include critical care, intracranial pressure, ICP, monitoring, epidural catheter, intracranial hypertension, ventriculostomy, ventricular drain, external ventricular drain, and physiologic monitoring.ResultsEleven articles met inclusion criteria. The published literature shows differences in simultaneously recorded ICP between the intraventricular and intraparenchymal sites.ConclusionsWe propose two new terms that more accurately identify the anatomical site of recording for the referenced ICP: intracranial pressure ventricular (ICP-v) and intracranial pressure brain tissue (ICP-bt). Further delineation of the conventional term "ICP" into these two new terms will clarify the difference between ICP-v and ICP-bt and their respective measurement locations.

9 keywords...

hide…