| 1. |
- Chesnut, Randall, et al.
(författare)
-
A Consensus-based Interpretation of the BEST TRIP ICP Trial.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 1557-9042 .- 0897-7151. ; 32:22, s. 1722-1724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Widely varying published and presented analyses of the BEST TRIP randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi-method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the groups general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of > 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83-100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that this study: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation and avoid "collateral damage".
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Naredi, S., et al.
(författare)
-
An outcome study of severe traumatic head injury using the "Lund therapy" with low-dose prostacyclin
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 45:4, s. 402-406
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There are two independent head injury outcome studies using the “Lund concept”, and both showed a mortality rate of about 10%, and a favourable outcome (Glasgow outcome scale, GOS 4 and 5) of about 70%. The Lund concept aims at controlling intracranial pressure, and improving microcirculation around contusions. Intracranial pressure is controlled by maintaining a normal colloid osmotic pressure and reducing the hydrostatic capillary pressure. Microcirculation is improved by ensuring strict normovolaemia and reducing sympathetic discharge. The endogenous substance prostacyclin with its antiaggregatory/antiadhesive effects may further improve microcirculation, which finds support from a microdialysis‐based clinical study and an experimental brain trauma study. The present clinical outcome study aims at evaluating whether the previously obtained good outcome with the Lund therapy can be reproduced, and whether the addition of prostacyclin has any adverse side‐effects.Methods: All 31 consecutive patients with severe head injury, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) ≤8, admitted to the University Hospital of Umeå during 1998 were included. The Lund therapy including prostacyclin infusion for the first three days at a dose of 0.5 ng kg−1 min−1. Outcome was evaluated according to the GOS >10 months after the injury.Results: One patient died, another suffered vegetative state and 7 severe disability. Of the 22 patients with favourable outcome, 19 showed good recovery and 3 moderate disability. No adverse side‐effects of prostacyclin were observed.Conclusion: The outcome results from previous studies using the Lund therapy were reproduced, and no adverse side‐effects of low‐dose prostacyclin were observed.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
