Explore the vast range of titles available.

Traditionally seen as a sudden, brutal event with short-term impairment, traumatic brain injury (TBI) may cause persistent, sometimes life-long, consequences. While mortality after TBI has been reduced, a high proportion of severe TBI survivors require prolonged rehabilitation and may suffer long-term physical, cognitive, and psychological disorders. Additionally, chronic consequences have been identified not only after severe TBI but also in a proportion of cases previously classified as moderate or mild. This burden affects the daily life of survivors and their families; it also has relevant social and economic costs. Outcome evaluation is difficult for several reasons: co-existing extra-cranial injuries (spinal cord damage, for instance) may affect independence and quality of life outside the pure TBI effects; scales may not capture subtle, but important, changes; co-operation from patients may be impossible in the most severe cases. Several instruments have been developed for capturing specific aspects, from generic health status to specific cognitive functions. Even simple instruments, however, have demonstrated variable inter-rater agreement. The possible links between structural traumatic brain damage and functional impairment have been explored both experimentally and in the clinical setting with advanced neuro-imaging techniques. We briefly report on some fundamental findings, which may also offer potential targets for future therapies. Better understanding of damage mechanisms and new approaches to neuroprotection-restoration may offer better outcomes for the millions of survivors of TBI.

Since 1974, the Glasgow Coma Scale has provided a practical method for bedside assessment of impairment of conscious level, the clinical hallmark of acute brain injury. The scale was designed to be easy to use in clinical practice in general and specialist units and to replace previous ill-defined and inconsistent methods. 40 years later, the Glasgow Coma Scale has become an integral part of clinical practice and research worldwide. Findings using the scale have shown strong associations with those obtained by use of other early indices of severity and outcome. However, predictive statements should only be made in combination with other variables in a multivariate model. Individual patients are best described by the three components of the coma scale; whereas the derived total coma score should be used to characterise groups. Adherence to this principle and enhancement of the reliable practical use of the scale through continuing education of health professionals, standardisation across different settings, and consensus on methods to address confounders will maintain its role in clinical practice and research in the future.

Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is currently managed in the intensive care unit with a combined medical–surgical approach. Treatment aims to prevent additional brain damage and to optimise conditions for brain recovery. TBI is typically considered and treated as one pathological entity, although in fact it is a syndrome comprising a range of lesions that can require different therapies and physiological goals. Owing to advances in monitoring and imaging, there is now the potential to identify specific mechanisms of brain damage and to better target treatment to individuals or subsets of patients. Targeted treatment is especially relevant for elderly people—who now represent an increasing proportion of patients with TBI—as preinjury comorbidities and their therapies demand tailored management strategies. Progress in monitoring and in understanding pathophysiological mechanisms of TBI could change current management in the intensive care unit, enabling targeted interventions that could ultimately improve outcomes.

Although animal models and early-phase clinical trials suggested that progesterone had beneficial effects in severe traumatic brain injury, this phase 3 clinical trial showed no benefit of progesterone as a neuroprotective agent for this condition. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability, with large direct and indirect costs to society. In the United States, more than 1.7 million persons have a TBI annually, 1 and the annual burden of TBI has been estimated at more than $76 billion. 2 Globally, the incidence of TBI is increasing, particularly in developing countries. 3 Although in recent years there has been a heightened interest in mild TBI and concussion, the problem of more severe TBI remains substantial, despite improvements in trauma systems and critical care. Mortality rates of approximately 40% have been reported in a review . . .

This article reviews the methods of monitoring and treating traumatic intracranial hypertension in intensive care settings. An elevation in intracranial pressure can be a medical or surgical emergency. There are many possible conditions that can lead to elevated intracranial pressure on either an acute or a chronic basis (Table 1). In this article, we focus on the increased intracranial pressure that occurs in patients after traumatic brain injury, since this is an area in which there are both physiological and clinical data. Traumatic brain injury is a medical and social problem worldwide, with an estimated 10 million cases leading to hospitalization or death each year. 1 In low- and medium-income countries, in which the use of motor-powered . . .

Objectives Recommendations for EEG monitoring in the ICU are lacking. The Neurointensive Care Section of the ESICM assembled a multidisciplinary group to establish consensus recommendations on the use of EEG in the ICU. Methods A systematic review was performed and 42 studies were included. Data were extracted using the PICO approach, including: (a) population, i.e. ICU patients with at least one of the following: traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, stroke, coma after cardiac arrest, septic and metabolic encephalopathy, encephalitis, and status epilepticus; (b) intervention, i.e. EEG monitoring of at least 30 min duration; (c) control, i.e. intermittent vs. continuous EEG, as no studies compared patients with a specific clinical condition, with and without EEG monitoring; (d) outcome endpoints, i.e. seizure detection, ischemia detection, and prognostication. After selection, evidence was classified and recommendations developed using the GRADE system. Recommendations The panel recommends EEG in generalized convulsive status epilepticus and to rule out nonconvulsive seizures in brain-injured patients and in comatose ICU patients without primary brain injury who have unexplained and persistent altered consciousness. We suggest EEG to detect ischemia in comatose patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and to improve prognostication of coma after cardiac arrest. We recommend continuous over intermittent EEG for refractory status epilepticus and suggest it for patients with status epilepticus and suspected ongoing seizures and for comatose patients with unexplained and persistent altered consciousness. Conclusions EEG monitoring is an important diagnostic tool for specific indications. Further data are necessary to understand its potential for ischemia assessment and coma prognostication.

BackgroundCurrent guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place.MethodsOur consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting.ResultsWe established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms.ConclusionsThese protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major health and socioeconomic problem that affects all societies. In recent years, patterns of injury have been changing, with more injuries, particularly contusions, occurring in older patients. Blast injuries have been identified as a novel entity with specific characteristics. Traditional approaches to the classification of clinical severity are the subject of debate owing to the widespread policy of early sedation and ventilation in more severely injured patients, and are being supplemented with structural and functional neuroimaging. Basic science research has greatly advanced our knowledge of the mechanisms involved in secondary damage, creating opportunities for medical intervention and targeted therapies; however, translating this research into patient benefit remains a challenge. Clinical management has become much more structured and evidence based since the publication of guidelines covering many aspects of care. In this Review, we summarise new developments and current knowledge and controversies, focusing on moderate and severe TBI in adults. Suggestions are provided for the way forward, with an emphasis on epidemiological monitoring, trauma organisation, and approaches to management.

Magnitude of intracranial pressure (ICP) elevations and their duration have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injuries (TBI), however published thresholds for injury vary and uncertainty about these levels has received relatively little attention. In this study, we have analyzed high-resolution ICP monitoring data in 227 adult patients in the CENTER-TBI dataset. Our aim was to identify thresholds of ICP intensity and duration associated with worse outcome, and to evaluate the uncertainty in any such thresholds. We present ICP intensity and duration plots to visualize the relationship between ICP events and outcome. We also introduced a novel bootstrap technique to evaluate uncertainty of the equipoise line. We found that an intensity threshold of 18 ± 4 mmHg (2 standard deviations) was associated with worse outcomes in this cohort. In contrast, the uncertainty in what duration is associated with harm was larger, and safe durations were found to be population dependent. The pressure and time dose (PTD) was also calculated as area under the curve above thresholds of ICP. A relationship between PTD and mortality could be established, as well as for unfavourable outcome. This relationship remained valid for mortality but not unfavourable outcome after adjusting for IMPACT core variables and maximum therapy intensity level. Importantly, during periods of impaired autoregulation (defined as pressure reactivity index (PRx)>0.3) ICP events were associated with worse outcomes for nearly all durations and ICP levels in this cohort and there was a stronger relationship between outcome and PTD. Whilst caution should be exercised in ascribing causation in observational analyses, these results suggest intracranial hypertension is poorly tolerated in the presence of impaired autoregulation. ICP level guidelines may need to be revised in the future taking into account cerebrovascular autoregulation status considered jointly with ICP levels.