Cerebral perfusion pressure is calculated by the formula CPP = MAP − ICP, where MAP is mean arterial pressure. Therefore, as intracranial pressure rises to malignant levels, CPP falls. This is problematic in the treatment of elevated ICP, because attempts to continue perfusing the brain (elevating CPP) can occur only by elevating blood pressure (MAP). Increasing blood pressure with already elevated ICP leads to loss of the brain’s normal autoregulatory mechanisms, which eventually results in even higher ICP. Much debate exists over whether to focus treatment on CPP or ICP. Early studies indicated that greater than a 20-mm Hg elevation in ICP for sustained intervals was associated with poor neurologic outcome. Later studies indicated that CPP less than 60 mm Hg was also associated with worse outcome. Recent preliminary studies, however, have shown that aggressive maintenance of CPP at a level higher than 60 mm Hg, even with prolonged ICP higher than 50 mm Hg for more than 48 hours, may still lead to a good neurologic outcome. Further randomized trials need to be performed before definitive recommendations can be made. Unfortunately, there are no level I studies indicating an optimal CPP threshold or ICP limit on which to base CPP-guided therapy.
The initial steps in controlling elevated ICP include medical therapies such as raising the head of the bed, maintaining the patient’s head straight, hyperventilation, and hyperosmolar therapy. Hyperventilation is a quick and easy way to lower ICP in theory, for lowering Pco2 will decrease cerebral blood flow and reverse brain parenchymal and CSF acidosis. However, hyperventilation is not without consequence. Disadvantages include induced vasoconstriction to a point where ischemia develops. The alkalization of cerebrospinal fluid is also very short-lived with hyperventilation. In a direct comparison of hyperventilation and no hyperventilation in patients with severe head injury, some studies have shown a statistically significant worse outcome in the hyperventilation group, mainly because of ischemia induced by the prolonged therapy. However, temporary hyperventilation is still a useful tool to lower ICP until other measures can be instituted.
The usual hyperosmolar agents used in the setting of traumatic brain injury are mannitol and hypertonic saline. Mannitol has three postulated effects: (1) plasma expansion, which improves cerebral rheology; (2) antioxidant effect, which improves the cerebral reaction to ischemia; and (3) osmotic diuresis, which lowers MAP and then ICP in a slightly delayed fashion. This third mechanism, however, could be detrimental if diuresis decreases MAP to a point of reduced CPP. Regardless, a level III randomized controlled trial has shown improved outcome with mannitol therapy. Hypertonic saline, in contrast, reduces ICP while preserving or improving CPP. Although it is questioned whether the reduction in ICP by hypertonic saline is greater than that by mannitol, few studies have directly compared the two, and they are rarely compared in equimolar doses. Additionally, despite hypertonic saline’s proved effect on control of ICP, no evidence of improved outcome exists. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of hypertonic saline over mannitol for osmotherapy in adults. Hemicraniectomy has an important role in the treatment of elevated ICP; however, it is rarely used as first-line therapy except in some cases of malignant stroke.