11. |
- van Veen, Ernest, et al.
(author)
-
Brain death and postmortem organ donation : report of a questionnaire from the CENTER-TBI study.
- 2018
-
In: Critical Care. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 22:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the extent of the agreement on practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation.METHODS: Investigators from 67 Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study centers completed several questionnaires (response rate: 99%).RESULTS: Regarding practices around brain death, we found agreement on the clinical evaluation (prerequisites and neurological assessment) for brain death determination (BDD) in 100% of the centers. However, ancillary tests were required for BDD in 64% of the centers. BDD for nondonor patients was deemed mandatory in 18% of the centers before withdrawing life-sustaining measures (LSM). Also, practices around postmortem organ donation varied. Organ donation after circulatory arrest was forbidden in 45% of the centers. When withdrawal of LSM was contemplated, in 67% of centers the patients with a ventricular drain in situ had this removed, either sometimes or all of the time.CONCLUSIONS: This study showed both agreement and some regional differences regarding practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. We hope our results help quantify and understand potential differences, and provide impetus for current dialogs toward further harmonization of practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation.
|
|
12. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(author)
-
Variation in Guideline Implementation and Adherence Regarding Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment : A CENTER-TBI Survey Study in Europe
- 2019
-
In: World Neurosurgery. - : Elsevier. - 1878-8750 .- 1878-8769. ; 125, s. e515-e520
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence.METHODS: As part of a prospective, observational, multicenter European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation.RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines, and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were "every patient is unique" and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers.
|
|
13. |
- Zeiler, Frederick A., et al.
(author)
-
Patient-specific ICP Epidemiologic Thresholds in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury : A CENTER-TBI Validation Study
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0898-4921 .- 1537-1921.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patient-specific epidemiologic intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) have emerged, using the relationship between pressure reactivity index (PRx) and ICP, displaying stronger association with outcome over existing guideline thresholds. The goal of this study was to explore this relationship in a multi-center cohort in order to confirm the previous finding.METHODS: Using the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) high-resolution intensive care unit cohort, we derived individualized epidemiologic ICP thresholds for each patient using the relationship between PRx and ICP. Mean hourly dose of ICP was calculated for every patient for the following thresholds: 20, 22 mm Hg and the patient's individual ICP threshold. Univariate logistic regression models were created comparing mean hourly dose of ICP above thresholds to dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12 months, based on Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended (GOSE) (alive/dead-GOSE≥2/GOSE=1; favorable/unfavorable-GOSE 5 to 8/GOSE 1 to 4, respectively).RESULTS: Individual thresholds were identified in 65.3% of patients (n=128), in keeping with previous results (23.0±11.8 mm Hg [interquartile range: 14.9 to 29.8 mm Hg]). Mean hourly dose of ICP above individual threshold provides superior discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC]=0.678, P=0.029) over mean hourly dose above 20 mm Hg (AUC=0.509, P=0.03) or above 22 mm Hg (AUC=0.492, P=0.035) on univariate analysis for alive/dead outcome at 6 to 12 months. The AUC for mean hourly dose above individual threshold trends to higher values for favorable/unfavorable outcome, but fails to reach statistical significance (AUC=0.610, P=0.060). This was maintained when controlling for baseline admission characteristics.CONCLUSIONS: Mean hourly dose of ICP above individual epidemiologic ICP threshold has stronger associations with mortality compared with the dose above Brain Trauma Foundation defined thresholds of 20 or 22 mm Hg, confirming prior findings. Further studies on patient-specific epidemiologic ICP thresholds are required.
|
|