PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ivan C Davis

Publications and source records attributed to Ivan C Davis.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Placement of intracranial pressure monitors: are "normal" coagulation parameters necessary?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with head injuries frequently have abnormal coagulation studies. Monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in head injured patients is common practice, but no best practice guidelines exist for coagulation parameters for ICP monitor placement. PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that hemorrhagic complication rates from ICP monitor placement are low and that the use of FFP to correct coagulation parameters to "normal" is not indicated. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients admitted to a Level I trauma center over a 3 year period, who underwent fiberoptic intraparenchymal ICP monitoring was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were coagulation studies (prothrombin time (PT), partial thromboplastin time (PTT), international normalized ratio (INR), platelet count) before ICP monitor placement and head CT scans to assess for hemorrhage before and after monitor placement. Data collected included age, Glasgow coma score (GCS), head region abbreviated injury score (H_AIS), time to ICP monitor placement, complications and outcomes. RESULTS: From 8/1/00 through 7/31/03, 5163 trauma patients were admitted, and 157 met inclusion criteria. Patients were stratified by INR, at the time of ICP placement as normal (0.8-1.2, 103 patients), borderline (1.3-1.6, 42 patients) and increased (>/=1.7, 12 patients). There was no difference between the groups in age, gender or H_AIS. Twenty two patients had component therapy to correct coagulopathy before ICP insertion, but 10 had INRs in the borderline group and 12 remained with INRs >/=1.7. Eleven patients had platelet counts 50,000-100,000 at ICP monitor placement, despite platelet transfusions. Time from admission to ICP monitor placement was significantly longer in patients who received component therapy (19.2 +/- 19.7 hours versus 8.8 +/- 13.9 hours, p < 0.002). Three patients had clinically insignificant, petechial hemorrhages (1.9%); one in each group, with INRs of 1.2, 1.3, and 2.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with INR </=1.6, hemorrhagic complications after ICP monitor placement were infrequent. The use of FFP to "normalize" INR below this threshold is not supported by this data and delays monitor placement.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Are automated blood pressure measurements accurate in trauma patients?

BACKGROUND: Automated blood pressure (BP) determinations by oscillometry are reported to be as accurate as invasive monitoring for systolic pressures as low as 80 mm Hg. Automated BP devices are widely used by prehospital providers and in hospital operating rooms, emergency departments, and intensive care units, although the accuracy of automated BP has not been demonstrated in trauma patients. We hypothesized that automated BP is less accurate than manual BP in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of automated BP versus manual BP in trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who met trauma activation criteria admitted to a Level I trauma center over a 30-month period was conducted. Patients were included if both manual BP and automated BP were measured within 5 minutes of admission. Additional data collected included Injury Severity Score, base deficit, and emergency department resuscitation volume. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t test, chi2, and linear regression analysis. Significance was attributed to a value of p < 0.05. RESULTS: From January 2000 through June 2002, 388 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients were grouped by manual BP levels: group 1, BP < or = 90 mm Hg (n = 92); group 2, BP 91-110 mm Hg (n = 119); and group 3, BP > or = 110 mm Hg (n = 177). The mean automated BP measurements were significantly higher than the manual measurements in groups 1 and 2 (26 and 16 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.001). Of the 92 patients with manual BP < or = 90, 45 (49%) had automated BP > or = 100. The base deficit (-5, -3, and -2 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.01), Injury Severity Score (30, 25, and 18; p < 0.01), and volume of resuscitative fluid and blood (p < 0.001) all decreased with higher BP group. CONCLUSION: Injury severity, degree of acidosis, and resuscitation volume were more accurately reflected by manual BP. Automated BP determinations were consistently higher than manual BP, particularly in hypotensive patients. Automated BP devices should not be used for field or hospital triage decisions. Manual BP determinations should be used until systolic blood pressure is consistently > or = 110 mm Hg.

Adult↗