{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024127531236535976, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02886686772942697, 'mean_word_length': 5.3791208791208796, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Infants and Young Children With Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To examine the use of intracranial pressure monitors and treatment for elevated intracranial pressure in children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury in North Carolina between April 2009 and March 2012 and compare this with a similar cohort recruited 2000–2001. Design: Prospective, observational cohort study. Setting: Twelve PICUs in North Carolina. Patients: All children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury, admitted to an included PICU. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: The use of intracranial pressure monitors and treatments for elevated intracranial pressure were evaluated in 238 children with traumatic brain injury. Intracranial pressure monitoring (risk ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.5–9.3) and intracranial pressure therapies were more common in children with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 compared with Glasgow Coma Scale greater than 8. However, only 17% of children with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 received a monitoring device. Treatments for elevated intracranial pressure were more common in children with monitors; yet, some children without monitors received therapies traditionally used to lower intracranial pressure. Unadjusted predictors of monitoring were Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8, receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, nonwhite race. Logistic regression showed no strong predictors of intracranial pressure monitor use. Compared with the 2000 cohort, children in the 2010 cohort with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 were less likely to receive monitoring (risk ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3–1.0), although the estimate was not precise, or intracranial pressure management therapies. Conclusion: Children in the 2010 cohort with a Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 were less likely to receive an intracranial pressure monitor or hyperosmolar therapy than children in the 2000 cohort; however, about 10% of children without monitors received therapies to decrease intracranial pressure. This suggests treatment heterogeneity in children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury and a need for better evidence to support treatment recommendations for this group of children.