Automated pupillometry and the FOUR score-what is the diagnostic benefit in neurointensive care?

Abstract

IntroductionThe Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and visual inspection of pupillary function are routine measures to monitor patients with impaired consciousness and predict their outcome in the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU). Our aim was to compare more recent measures, i.e. FOUR score and automated pupillometry, to standard monitoring with the GCS and visual inspection of pupils.MethodsSupervised trained nursing staff examined a consecutive sample of patients admitted to the neuro-ICU of a tertiary referral centre using GCS and FOUR score and assessing pupillary function first by visual inspection and then by automated pupillometry. Clinical outcome was evaluated 6 months after admission using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended.ResultsFifty-six consecutive patients (median age 63 years) were assessed a total of 234 times. Of the 36 patients with at least one GCS score of 3, 13 had a favourable outcome. All seven patients with at least one FOUR score of ≤ 3 had an unfavourable outcome, which was best predicted by a low “brainstem” sub-score. Compared to automated pupillometry, visual assessment underestimated pupillary diameters (median difference, 0.4 mm; P = 0.006). Automated pupillometry detected a preserved pupillary light reflex in 10 patients, in whom visual inspection had missed pupillary constriction.DiscussionTraining of nursing staff to implement frequent monitoring of patients in the neuro-ICU with FOUR score and automated pupillometry is feasible. Both measures provide additional clinical information compared to the GCS and visual assessment of pupillary function, most importantly a more granular classification of patients with low levels of consciousness by the FOUR score.