Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants' collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants’ collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants’ collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

Pressure autoregulation is an important hemodynamic mechanism that protects the brain against inappropriate fluctuations in cerebral blood flow in the face of changing cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Static autoregulation represents how far cerebrovascular resistance changes when CPP varies, and dynamic autoregulation represents how fast these changes happen. Both have been monitored in the setting of neurocritical care to aid prognostication and contribute to individualizing CPP targets in patients. Failure of autoregulation is associated with a worse outcome in various acute neurological diseases. Several studies have used transcranial Doppler ultrasound, intracranial pressure (ICP with vascular reactivity as surrogate measure of autoregulation), and near-infrared spectroscopy to continuously monitor the impact of spontaneous fluctuations in CPP on cerebrovascular physiology and to calculate derived variables of autoregulatory efficiency. Many patients who undergo such monitoring demonstrate a range of CPP in which autoregulatory efficiency is optimal. Management of patients at or near this optimal level of CPP is associated with better outcomes in traumatic brain injury. Many of these studies have utilized the concept of the pressure reactivity index, a correlation coefficient between ICP and mean arterial pressure. While further studies are needed, these data suggest that monitoring of autoregulation could aid prognostication and may help identify optimal CPP levels in individual patients.

Maintenance of adequate oxygenation is a mainstay of intensive care, however, recommendations on the safety, accuracy, and the potential clinical utility of invasive and non-invasive tools to monitor brain and systemic oxygenation in neurocritical care are lacking. A literature search was conducted for English language articles describing bedside brain and systemic oxygen monitoring in neurocritical care patients from 1980 to August 2013. Imaging techniques e.g., PET are not considered. A total of 281 studies were included, the majority described patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). All tools for oxygen monitoring are safe. Parenchymal brain oxygen (PbtO 2 ) monitoring is accurate to detect brain hypoxia, and it is recommended to titrate individual targets of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), ventilator parameters (PaCO 2 , PaO 2 ), and transfusion, and to manage intracranial hypertension, in combination with ICP monitoring. SjvO 2 is less accurate than PbtO 2 . Given limited data, NIRS is not recommended at present for adult patients who require neurocritical care. Systemic monitoring of oxygen (PaO 2 , SaO 2 , SpO 2 ) and CO 2 (PaCO 2 , end-tidal CO 2 ) is recommended in patients who require neurocritical care.

Careful patient monitoring using a variety of techniques including clinical and laboratory evaluation, bedside physiological monitoring with continuous or non-continuous techniques and imaging is fundamental to the care of patients who require neurocritical care. How best to perform and use bedside monitoring is still being elucidated. To create a basic platform for care and a foundation for further research the Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop recommendations about physiologic bedside monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews as a background to the recommendations. In this article, we highlight the recommendations and provide additional conclusions as an aid to the reader and to facilitate bedside care.

A variety of technologies have been developed to assist decision-making during the management of patients with acute brain injury who require intensive care. A large body of research has been generated describing these various technologies. The Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium (LABIC) organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to perform a systematic review of the published literature to help develop evidence-based practice recommendations on bedside physiologic monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews on physiologic processes important in the care of acute brain injury. In this article we provide the evidentiary tables for select topics including systemic hemodynamics, intracranial pressure, brain and systemic oxygenation, EEG, brain metabolism, biomarkers, processes of care and monitoring in emerging economies to provide the clinician ready access to evidence that supports recommendations about neuromonitoring.

The effect of intracranial pressure (ICP) and the role of ICP monitoring are best studied in traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, a variety of acute neurologic illnesses e.g., subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, meningitis/encephalitis, and select metabolic disorders, e.g., liver failure and malignant, brain tumors can affect ICP. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature about ICP monitoring in conditions other than TBI and to provide recommendations how the technique may be used in patient management. A PubMed search between 1980 and September 2013 identified 989 articles; 225 of which were reviewed in detail. The technique used to monitor ICP in non-TBI conditions is similar to that used in TBI; however, indications for ICP monitoring often are intertwined with the presence of obstructive hydrocephalus and hence the use of ventricular catheters is more frequent. Increased ICP can adversely affect outcome, particularly when it fails to respond to treatment. However, patients with elevated ICP can still have favorable outcomes. Although the influence of ICP-based care on outcome in non-TBI conditions appears less robust than in TBI, monitoring ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure can play a role in guiding therapy in select patients.

Background 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. Methods This was a prospective, repeated measures, multi-site national trial. Adult ICU patients with neurological injury necessitating ICP and CPP monitoring were consecutively enrolled from seven sites. Daily MAP/ICP/CPP values were gathered with the arterial transducer at the PA, followed by the Tg as anatomical reference points. Results A total of 136 subjects were enrolled, resulting in 324 paired observations. There were significant differences for CPP when comparing values obtained at PA and Tg reference points ( p  < 0.000). Differences remained significant in repeated measures model when controlling for clinical factors (mean CPP-PA = 80.77, mean CPP-Tg = 70.61, p  < 0.000). When categorizing CPP as binary endpoint, 18.8% of values were identified as adequate with PA values, yet inadequate with CPP values measured at the Tg. Conclusion 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.