| 1. |
- Hawryluk, Gregory W. J., et al.
(författare)
-
A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring : the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 45:12, s. 1783-1794
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation's sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based.Methods: We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists' decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations.Results: We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination.Conclusions: Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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".
|
|
| 3. |
- Bazarian, Jeffrey J., et al.
(författare)
-
Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI) : a multicentre observational study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Lancet Neurology. - : Lancet Publishing Group. - 1474-4422 .- 1474-4465. ; 17:9, s. 782-789
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: More than 50 million people worldwide sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) annually. Detection of intracranial injuries relies on head CT, which is overused and resource intensive. Blood-based brain biomarkers hold the potential to predict absence of intracranial injury and thus reduce unnecessary head CT scanning. We sought to validate a test combining ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), at predetermined cutoff values, to predict traumatic intracranial injuries on head CT scan acutely after TBI.Methods: This prospective, multicentre observational trial included adults (≥18 years) presenting to participating emergency departments with suspected, non-penetrating TBI and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 9-15. Patients were eligible if they had undergone head CT as part of standard emergency care and blood collection within 12 h of injury. UCH-L1 and GFAP were measured in serum and analysed using prespecified cutoff values of 327 pg/mL and 22 pg/mL, respectively. UCH-L1 and GFAP assay results were combined into a single test result that was compared with head CT results. The primary study outcomes were the sensitivity and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the test result for the detection of traumatic intracranial injury on head CT.Findings: Between Dec 6, 2012, and March 20, 2014, 1977 patients were recruited, of whom 1959 had analysable data. 125 (6%) patients had CT-detected intracranial injuries and eight (<1%) had neurosurgically manageable injuries. 1288 (66%) patients had a positive UCH-L1 and GFAP test result and 671 (34%) had a negative test result. For detection of intracranial injury, the test had a sensitivity of 0·976 (95% CI 0·931-0·995) and an NPV of 0·996 (0·987-0·999). In three (<1%) of 1959 patients, the CT scan was positive when the test was negative.Interpretation: These results show the high sensitivity and NPV of the UCH-L1 and GFAP test. This supports its potential clinical role for ruling out the need for a CT scan among patients with TBI presenting at emergency departments in whom a head CT is felt to be clinically indicated. Future studies to determine the value added by this biomarker test to head CT clinical decision rules could be warranted.Funding: Banyan Biomarkers and US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Picetti, Edoardo, et al.
(författare)
-
WSES consensus conference guidelines: monitoring and management of severe adult traumatic brain injury patients with polytrauma in the first 24 hours
- 2019
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Emergency Surgery. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1749-7922. ; 14:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The acute phase management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and polytrauma represents a major challenge. Guidelines for the care of these complex patients are lacking, and worldwide variability in clinical practice has been documented in recent studies. Consequently, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) decided to organize an international consensus conference regarding the monitoring and management of severe adult TBI polytrauma patients during the first 24 hours after injury. A modified Delphi approach was adopted, with an agreement cut-off of 70%. Forty experts in this field (emergency surgeons, neurosurgeons, and intensivists) participated in the online consensus process. Sixteen recommendations were generated, with the aim of promoting rational care in this difficult setting.
|
|
