This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
In “Automated Quantitative Pupillometry in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Opic et al. summarized 58 articles (10 randomized trials) published from 1990 to 2019 on the use of automated pupillometry in adult critically ill patients. They reported that increased intracranial pressure (ICP), traumatic brain injury (TBI), ischemic brain damage, opioids and hypoxemia, and hypercarbia are potential confounders for pupillometry. Taccone et al. commented that increased ICP, TBI, and hypoxic ischemic brain injury (HIBI) should not be considered confounders of pupillometry (circumstances in which the test may be unreliable) but rather injuries that can cause pupillary abnormalities and that altered pupillary responses in these settings could be indicative of poor prognosis. In response, Opic et al. reinforced that medications can confound the pupillary assessment in certain circumstances but did not address the distinction between whether increased ICP, TBI, and HIBI typically confound or cause pupillary abnormalities. Larson commented that although opioids cause pupillary constriction, they do not affect the strength of the pupillary light reflex (PLR). They also pointed out that the systematic review did not include an article by Rollins et al., which described the persistence of a robust quantifiable PLR in the setting of opioid-induced hypoxia and hypercarbia. Opic et al. noted that they eliminated some articles based on the exclusion criteria of studies that used nonhandheld devices, but it is worth noting that Rollins et al. did, in fact, use a handheld device (the Neuroptics ForSite).1,2 Opic et al. acknowledged that although the PLR involves both static and dynamic parameters, most of the studies they reviewed regarding the impact of opioids on pupillometry discussed their confounding impact on static parameters. Opic et al. and Larson reinforced that pupillometry always requires interpretation by a clinician based on an individual patient's circumstances.
In “Automated Quantitative Pupillometry in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Opic et al. summarized 58 articles (10 randomized trials) published from 1990 to 2019 on the use of automated pupillometry in adult critically ill patients. They reported that increased intracranial pressure (ICP), traumatic brain injury (TBI), ischemic brain damage, opioids and hypoxemia, and hypercarbia are potential confounders for pupillometry. Taccone et al. commented that increased ICP, TBI, and hypoxic ischemic brain injury (HIBI) should not be considered confounders of pupillometry (circumstances in which the test may be unreliable) but rather injuries that can cause pupillary abnormalities and that altered pupillary responses in these settings could be indicative of poor prognosis. In response, Opic et al. reinforced that medications can confound the pupillary assessment in certain circumstances but did not address the distinction between whether increased ICP, TBI, and HIBI typically confound or cause pupillary abnormalities. Larson commented that although opioids cause pupillary constriction, they do not affect the strength of the pupillary light reflex (PLR). They also pointed out that the systematic review did not include an article by Rollins et al., which described the persistence of a robust quantifiable PLR in the setting of opioid-induced hypoxia and hypercarbia. Opic et al. noted that they eliminated some articles based on the exclusion criteria of studies that used nonhandheld devices, but it is worth noting that Rollins et al. did, in fact, use a handheld device (the Neuroptics ForSite).1,2 Opic et al. acknowledged that although the PLR involves both static and dynamic parameters, most of the studies they reviewed regarding the impact of opioids on pupillometry discussed their confounding impact on static parameters. Opic et al. and Larson reinforced that pupillometry always requires interpretation by a clinician based on an individual patient's circumstances.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2021 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
