Neurocritical care
-
External ventricular drains (EVD) are essential in the early management of hydrocephalus and elevated intracranial pressure after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Once in place, management of the EVD is thought to influence long-term patient outcomes, rates of ventriculitis, incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia, need for a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. The available evidence supports adopting early clamp trials and intermittent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage. ⋯ In this article, we review the literature and arguments for and against the different EVD approaches. We conclude that an early clamp trial and intermittent CSF drainage can be safe and result in fewer EVD complications and shorter length of stay. Given the discrepancy between the available evidence and current practice, more studies on the optimal management of EVDs are warranted with the greatest need for multicenter prospective studies.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A Randomized Trial of Brief Versus Extended Seizure Prophylaxis After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.
Seizures occur in 10-20% of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), predominantly in the acute phase. However, anticonvulsant prophylaxis remains controversial, with studies suggesting a brief course may be adequate and longer exposure may be associated with worse outcomes. Nonetheless, in the absence of controlled trials to inform practice, patients continue to receive variable chemoprophylaxis. The objective of this study was to compare brief versus extended seizure prophylaxis after aneurysmal SAH. ⋯ This study was underpowered to demonstrate superiority of extended LEV for seizure prophylaxis, although a trend to benefit was seen. Seizures primarily occurred in those with radiographic EBI, suggesting targeted prophylaxis may be preferable. Larger trials are required to evaluate optimal chemoprophylaxis in SAH, especially in light of worse outcomes in those receiving extended treatment.
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial Observational Study
A National Trial on Differences in Cerebral Perfusion Pressure Values by Measurement Location.
Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is a key parameter in management of brain injury with suspected impaired cerebral autoregulation. CPP is calculated by subtracting intracranial pressure (ICP) from mean arterial pressure (MAP). Despite consensus on importance of CPP monitoring, substantial variations exist on anatomical reference points used to measure arterial MAP when calculating CPP. This study aimed to identify differences in CPP values based on measurement location when using phlebostatic axis (PA) or tragus (Tg) as anatomical reference points. The secondary study aim was to determine impact of differences on patient outcomes at discharge. ⋯ Findings identify numerical differences for CPP based on anatomical reference location and highlight importance of a standard reference point for both clinical practice and future trials to limit practice variations and heterogeneity of findings.
-
Using electronic health data, we sought to identify clinical and physiological parameters that in combination predict neurologic outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). ⋯ Variance in early physiologic data can impact patient outcomes and may serve as targets for early goal-directed therapy. Electronically retrievable features such as ICP, glucose levels, and electroencephalography patterns should be considered in disease severity and risk stratification scores.
-
Continuous monitoring of cerebral autoregulation is considered clinically useful due to its ability to warn against brain ischemic insults, which may translate to a relationship with adverse outcome. It is typically performed using the pressure reactivity index (PRx) based on mean arterial pressure and intracranial pressure. A new ORx index based on brain tissue oxygenation and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) has been proposed that similarly allows for evaluation of cerebrovascular reactivity. Conflicting results exist concerning its clinical utility. ⋯ In the TBI setting, ORx does not appear to correlate with vascular pressure reactivity as assessed with PRx. Its potential use for individualizing CPP thresholds remains unclear.