Prognostic Value of Cerebrovascular Reactivity (PRx) Versus Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: Systematic Review

Full abstract

Read the full abstract

Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring remains the cornerstone of neurocritical care in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet its prognostic value as a standalone metric is limited. The Pressure Reactivity Index (PRx), a continuous measure of cerebrovascular reactivity derived from ICP and arterial blood pressure, may offer additional or complementary prognostic information. This systematic review aimed to compare the prognostic performance of PRx-derived metrics versus standard ICP monitoring for mortality and functional outcome in patients with TBI. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and December 2025. Studies were eligible if they included adult TBI patients with continuous multimodal monitoring and reported comparative prognostic data for PRx- and ICP-based metrics. Risk of bias within the studies was appraised via the QUIPS tool, and the GRADE system was used to rate the strength of the evidence. Due to methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Nine studies were included. Applying a maximum-cohort estimation to account for overlapping registries, the pooled sample comprised a minimum of 1240 unique patients. In the majority of included studies, direct within-cohort head-to-head comparisons demonstrated that specific PRx-derived metrics—such as the individualized ICP threshold (iICP), Longest Continuous Duration of Autoregulatory Impairment (LCAI), Lower Limit of Reactivity (LLR), and time-integrated burdens (%Time > Threshold)—yielded stronger prognostic discrimination compared to standard ICP thresholds for both mortality (PRx: AUC 0.747–0.648 and ICP: AUC 0.660–0.614) and functional outcome. When added to established predictive models, PRx-derived metrics provided clinically meaningful incremental improvements in prognostic accuracy, with descriptive incremental AUC gains ranging from +0.039 to +0.170 across the six studies reporting model augmentation. Due to heterogeneity in baseline models, PRx-derived metrics, and patient populations, these findings are presented strictly as a descriptive range. Conclusions: PRx and PRx-derived cerebrovascular reactivity metrics-namely iICP, LCAI, LLR, and time-integrated burdens of autoregulatory failure—show potential to offer additive prognostic value beyond standard ICP monitoring in severe TBI. However, because current evidence is strictly observational and likely influenced by institutional confounders, it cannot currently support definitive clinical recommendations. Further prospective, multicenter studies utilizing standardized thresholds are necessary to confirm these associative findings and isolate their true prognostic value.