Neurocritical care
-
Disorders of consciousness (DoC) resulting from severe acute brain injuries may prompt clinicians and surrogate decision makers to consider withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) if the neurologic prognosis is poor. Recent guidelines suggest, however, that clinicians should avoid definitively concluding a poor prognosis prior to 28 days post injury, as patients may demonstrate neurologic recovery outside the acute time period. This practice may increase the frequency with which clinicians consider the option of delayed WLST (D-WLST), namely, WLST that would occur after hospital discharge, if the patient's recovery trajectory ultimately proves inconsistent with an acceptable quality of life. ⋯ Third, we outline how D-WLST is practically implemented. And finally, we discuss psychosocial barriers to D-WLST, including the regret paradox, in which surrogates of patients who do not recover to meet preestablished goals frequently choose not to ultimately pursue D-WLST. Together, these practical, logistic, and psychosocial factors must be considered when potentially deferring WLST to the post-acute-care setting to optimize neurologic recovery for patients, avoid prolonged undue suffering, and promote informed and shared decision-making between clinicians and surrogates.
-
Pathologically low brain glucose levels, referred to as neuroglucopenia, are associated with unfavorable outcomes in neurocritical care patients. We sought to investigate whether an increase in serum glucose levels would be associated with a reduction of neuroglucopenia. ⋯ In conclusion, the liberalization of serum glucose concentrations to levels between 150 and 180 mg/dl was associated with a significant reduction of neuroglucopenia.
-
In aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, rebleeding prior to securing the culprit aneurysm leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Elevated blood pressure has been identified as a possible risk factor. In this systematic review, we evaluated the association between elevated blood pressure and aneurysm rebleeding during the unsecured period. ⋯ Meta-analysis of adjusted results was only possible at an SBP > 160 mm Hg; adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 (95% CI 0.98-1.31; I2 = 0%). The overall quality of evidence as assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations tool was rated as very low. Based on very low quality evidence, our systematic review failed to determine whether there is an association between elevated blood pressure during the unsecured period and increased risk of culprit aneurysm rebleeding.