ICP monitoring devices market grows modestly amid clinical reliance, limited innovation and access gaps, finds GlobalData

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring devices remain essential in managing neurological emergencies, yet the market is maturing slowly amid limited innovation and entrenched clinical preferences. With annual growth at just 2.4 per cent, the sector is shaped more by procedural reliability than technological disruption. Despite their proven value, broader adoption hinges on integrating innovation with clinical workflows and addressing systemic access barriers, says GlobalData.

GlobalData forecasts the market to reach $84.5 million in 2030 from $75.5 million in 2025. Over 300,000 devices are expected to be used globally in 2025, primarily in intensive care units managing traumatic brain injury, hydrocephalus, or subarachnoid hemorrhage. Despite their clinical importance, the market remains defined more by inertia and preference than by active competition or innovation.

Ashley Clarke, Senior Medical Analyst at GlobalData, states, “Intracranial pressure is a standard signal for early neurological deterioration in critical care. The existing ICP monitors are trusted, effective, and familiar, so even small changes to existing technology or protocols can feel like a risk. These environments prioritise reliability, and unless a new solution is truly transformative, adoption is unlikely.”

The market remains dominated by external ventricular drains (EVDs), which account for over 80 per cent of invasive monitoring devices used. These systems offer both pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage and are backed by decades of procedural familiarity, clear reimbursement pathways, and signal reliability. While EVDs are associated with infection and bleeding risks, they remain the standard of care. There are few alternative devices that can meaningfully improve clinical workflows or outcomes.

Clarke continues, “The recent clinical developments have focused on refining insertion techniques, workflow integration, and training tools. These procedural challenges, rather than device technical limitations, are a major barrier to increasing adoption and accessibility.”

Microtransducer systems are useful when drainage is not required and can provide continuous pressure monitoring without ventricular access. However, they face adoption barriers due to placement complexity and limited reimbursement, especially in outpatient settings. Other non-invasive ICP tools—such as transcranial Doppler and optic nerve sheath ultrasound—are being evaluated for use in lower-intensity or outpatient settings. While some have received FDA clearance, their use is limited by inconsistent accuracy and a lack of validation for standalone use.

Clarke adds, “Realistically, innovation is shifting towards hybrid microtransducer systems that combine ICP monitoring with other capabilities like brain oxygenation or blood perfusion measurements, rather than novel technology. These multi-purpose devices can support broader care models and help more sites justify adopting the procedures required for newer equipment.”

Even with device and procedural innovation, large-scale change will also require addressing persistent infrastructure gaps. Device usage varies widely across institutions. Large trauma centers and academic hospitals are more likely to monitor ICP, while smaller or rural facilities may forgo it due to staffing, training, or equipment limitations. Additionally, global procedural data is inconsistently reported, making it difficult to quantify true usage or assess unmet need.

Clarke concludes, “Though mature and slow-moving, ICP monitoring remains indispensable—and targeted innovation could still build growth by expanding clinical utility, enabling broader access, or embedding monitoring in adjacent care settings.”