Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neurocritical care is a distinct subspecialty focusing on the optimal management of acutely ill patients with life-threatening neurologic and neurosurgical disease or with life-threatening neurologic manifestations of systemic disease. Care by expert healthcare providers to optimize neurologic recovery is necessary. Given the lack of an organizational framework and criteria for the development and maintenance of neurological critical care units (NCCUs), this document is put forth by the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS). Recommended organizational structure, personnel and processes necessary to develop a successful neurocritical care program are outlined. Methods: Under the direction of NCS Executive Leadership, a multidisciplinary writing group of NCS members was formed. After an iterative process, a framework was proposed and approved by members of the writing group. A draft was then written, which was reviewed by the NCS Quality Committee and NCS Guidelines Committee, members at large, and posted for public comment. Feedback was formally collated, reviewed and incorporated into the final document which was subsequently approved by the NCS Board of Directors.

This proceedings article presents actionable research targets on the basis of the presentations and discussions at the 2nd Curing Coma National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium held from May 3 to May 5, 2021. Here, we summarize the background, research priorities, panel discussions, and deliverables discussed during the symposium across six major domains related to disorders of consciousness. The six domains include (1) Biology of Coma, (2) Coma Database, (3) Neuroprognostication, (4) Care of Comatose Patients, (5) Early Clinical Trials, and (6) Long-term Recovery. Following the 1st Curing Coma NIH virtual symposium held on September 9 to September 10, 2020, six workgroups, each consisting of field experts in respective domains, were formed and tasked with identifying gaps and developing key priorities and deliverables to advance the mission of the Curing Coma Campaign. The highly interactive and inspiring presentations and panel discussions during the 3-day virtual NIH symposium identified several action items for the Curing Coma Campaign mission, which we summarize in this article.

Background Limited data exist regarding the optimal clinical trial design for studies involving persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC), and only a few therapies have been tested in high-quality clinical trials. To address this, the Curing Coma Campaign Clinical Trial Working Group performed a gap analysis on the current state of clinical trials in DoC to identify the optimal clinical design for studies involving persons with DoC. Methods The Curing Coma Campaign Clinical Trial Working Group was divided into three subgroups to (1) review clinical trials involving persons with DoC, (2) identify unique challenges in the design of clinical trials involving persons with DoC, and (3) recommend optimal clinical trial designs for DoC. Results There were 3055 studies screened, and 66 were included in this review. Several knowledge gaps and unique challenges were identified. There is a lack of high-quality clinical trials, and most data regarding patients with DoC are based on observational studies focusing on patients with traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest. There is a lack of a structured long-term outcome assessment with significant heterogeneity in the methodology, definitions of outcomes, and conduct of studies, especially for long-term follow-up. Another major barrier to conducting clinical trials is the lack of resources, especially in low-income countries. Based on the available data, we recommend incorporating trial designs that use master protocols, sequential multiple assessment randomized trials, and comparative effectiveness research. Adaptive platform trials using a multiarm, multistage approach offer substantial advantages and should make use of biomarkers to assess treatment responses to increase trial efficiency. Finally, sound infrastructure and international collaboration are essential to facilitate the conduct of trials in patients with DoC. Conclusions Conduct of trials in patients with DoC should make use of master protocols and adaptive design and establish international registries incorporating standardized assessment tools. This will allow the establishment of evidence-based practice recommendations and decrease variations in care.

We examined the associations between the Neurological Pupillary Index (NPi) and disposition at hospital discharge in patients admitted to the neurocritical care unit with acute brain injury (ABI) due to acute ischemic stroke (AIS), spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The primary outcome was discharge disposition (home/acute rehabilitation vs. death/hospice/skilled nursing facility). Secondary outcomes were tracheostomy tube placement and transition to comfort measures. Among 2258 patients who received serial NPi assessments within the first seven days of ICU admission, 47.7% (n = 1078) demonstrated NPi ≥ 3 on initial and final assessments, 30.1% (n = 680) had initial NPI < 3 that never improved, 19% (n = 430) had initial NPi ≥ 3, which subsequently worsened to <3 and never recovered, and 3.1% (n = 70) had initial NPi < 3, which improved to ≥3. After adjusting for age, sex, admitting diagnosis, admission Glasgow Coma Scale score, craniotomy/craniectomy, and hyperosmolar therapy, NPi values that remained <3 or worsened from ≥3 to <3 were associated with poor outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 2.58, 95% CI [2.03; 3.28]), placement of a tracheostomy tube (aOR 1.58, 95% CI [1.13; 2.22]), and transition to comfort measures only (aOR 2.12, 95% CI [1.67; 2.70]). Our study suggests that serial NPi assessments during the first seven days of ICU admission may be helpful in predicting outcomes and guiding clinical decision-making in patients with ABI. Further studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of interventions to improve NPi trends in this population.

The Neurocritical Care Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine have worked together to create a perspective regarding the Standards of Neurologic Critical Care Units (Moheet et al. in Neurocrit Care 29:145–160, 2018). The most neurologically ill or injured patients warrant the highest standard of care available; this supports the need for defining and establishing specialized neurological critical care units. Rather than interpreting the Standards as being exclusionary, it is most appropriate to embrace them in the setting of team-based care. Since there are many more patients than there are highly specialized beds, collaborative care and appropriate transfer agreements are essential in promoting excellent patient outcomes. This viewpoint addresses areas of clarification and emphasizes the need for collegiality and partnership in delivering the best specialty critical care to our patients.

The authors note that there is a discrepancy between the text of the paper and Table 2 regarding physician subspecialty certification requirements in neurocritical care for Level II centers.The authors note that there is a discrepancy between the text of the paper and Table 2 regarding physician subspecialty certification requirements in neurocritical care for Level II centers.

Large randomized trials with suitable end points will be necessary before we can say with any certainty that milrinone does—or does not—have benefit in the management of DCI, and even then we may not fully understand its mechanisms of action. Source of support There was no funding source for this article. Sarah Livesay has received consulting fees from Lombardi Hill/Stroke Challenges, has received payment for expert testimony, has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from the Neurocritical Care Society, and has a leadership position in the Neurocritical Care Society.

One of the most serious complications after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is delayed cerebral ischemia, the cause of which is multifactorial. Delayed cerebral ischemia considerably worsens neurological outcome and increases the risk of death. The targets of hemodynamic management of SAH have widely changed over the past 30 years. Hypovolemia and hypotension were favored prior to the era of early aneurysmal surgery but were subsequently replaced by the use of hypervolemia and hypertension. More recently, the concept of goal-directed therapy targeting euvolemia, with or without hypertension, is gaining preference. Despite the evolving concepts and the vast literature, fundamental questions related to hemodynamic optimization and its effects on cerebral perfusion and patient outcomes remain unanswered. In this review, we explain the rationale underlying the approaches to hemodynamic management and provide guidance on contemporary strategies related to fluid administration and blood pressure and cardiac output manipulation in the management of SAH.

Background The neurointensive care management of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is one of the most critical components contributing to short-term and long-term patient outcomes. Previous recommendations for the medical management of aSAH comprehensively summarized the evidence based on consensus conference held in 2011. In this report, we provide updated recommendations based on appraisal of the literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Methods The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome (PICO) questions relevant to the medical management of aSAH were prioritized by consensus from the panel members. The panel used a custom-designed survey instrument to prioritize clinically relevant outcomes specific to each PICO question. To be included, the study design qualifying criteria were as follows: prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective observational studies, case–control studies, case series with a sample larger than 20 patients, meta-analyses, restricted to human study participants. Panel members first screened titles and abstracts, and subsequently full text review of selected reports. Data were abstracted in duplicate from reports meeting inclusion criteria. Panelists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Risk of Bias tool for assessment of RCTs and the “Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies – of Interventions” tool for assessment of observational studies. The summary of the evidence for each PICO was presented to the full panel, and then the panel voted on the recommendations. Results The initial search retrieved 15,107 unique publications, and 74 were included for data abstraction. Several RCTs were conducted to test pharmacological interventions, and we found that the quality of evidence for nonpharmacological questions was consistently poor. Five PICO questions were supported by strong recommendations, one PICO question was supported by conditional recommendations, and six PICO questions did not have sufficient evidence to provide a recommendation. Conclusions These guidelines provide recommendations for or against interventions proven to be effective, ineffective, or harmful in the medical management of patients with aSAH based on a rigorous review of the available literature. They also serve to highlight gaps in knowledge that should guide future research priorities. Despite improvements in the outcomes of patients with aSAH over time, many important clinical questions remain unanswered.