BACKGROUND: @entity131 Foundation (BTF) guidelines recommend @entity428 ( @entity428 ) monitoring for @entity131 ( @entity131 ) @entity1 with a Glasgow @entity772 Scale score of 8 or less with an abnormal head computed tomography, or a normal head computed tomography scan with systolic blood pressure  <=90  mm  Hg, posturing, or in @entity1 of age >= 40. The benefits of these guidelines on outcome remain unproven. We hypothesized that adherence to BTF guidelines for @entity428 monitoring does not improve outcomes in @entity1 with @entity131 . METHODS: All @entity131 @entity1 with an admission Glasgow @entity772 Scale  <=8 admitted to our level I @entity130 center over a 3-y period were identified. Adherence to the individual components of our institutional @entity131 Bundle ( @entity428 monitoring, SpO2 >= 95%, PaCO2 30-39 mm Hg, systolic blood pressure >= 90 mm Hg, cerebral perfusion pressure >= 60 mm Hg, @entity428  <=25 mm Hg, and temperature 36  C-37  C) was assessed. @entity1 were stratified into two groups as follows: @entity1 with @entity428 monitoring ( @entity428 ) and @entity1 without @entity428 monitoring (no- @entity428 ). Outcome measures were survival and discharge disposition. Multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 2618 @entity131 @entity1 , 261 of whom met the BTF criteria for @entity428 monitoring. After excluding those with nonsurvivable injuries (n  =  67), 194 @entity1 were available for analysis. The two groups were similar in demographics and severity of @entity542 . Survival rate was higher in the no- @entity428 group compared with that in the @entity428 group (98% versus 76%, P  <  0.004). Non-monitored @entity1 were discharged with higher levels of function per discharge location (28% home versus 4% home; P  <  0.001). @entity1 without @entity428 monitoring were 1.21 times more likely to survive compared with that of @entity1 with @entity428 monitoring (odds ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [1.1-1.9], P  =  0.01). In the @entity428 group, the overall compliance rate to the @entity428 and cerebral perfusion pressure goals as required by the BTF guidelines was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that there is a subset of @entity1 meeting BTF criteria for @entity428 monitoring that do well without @entity428 monitoring. This finding should provoke reevaluation of the indication and utility of @entity428 monitoring in @entity131 @entity1 .

Intracranial pressure monitor in XXXX with @entity131 .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity131 :: ('MESH:D001930', 'Disease') :: ['Brain Trauma', 'TBI', 'traumatic brain injury'] @entity428 :: ('MESH:D019586', 'Disease') :: ['ICP', 'intracranial pressure'] @entity542 :: ('MESH:D006259', 'Disease') :: ['head injury'] @entity772 :: ('MESH:D003128', 'Disease') :: ['Coma'] @entity130 :: ('MESH:D014947', 'Disease') :: ['trauma']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['patients']
