Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract The scope and purpose of this work is 2-fold: to synthesize the available evidence and to translate it into recommendations. This document provides recommendations only when there is evidence to support them. As such, they do not constitute a complete protocol for clinical use. Our intention is that these recommendations be used by others to develop treatment protocols, which necessarily need to incorporate consensus and clinical judgment in areas where current evidence is lacking or insufficient. We think it is important to have evidence-based recommendations to clarify what aspects of practice currently can and cannot be supported by evidence, to encourage use of evidence-based treatments that exist, and to encourage creativity in treatment and research in areas where evidence does not exist. The communities of neurosurgery and neuro-intensive care have been early pioneers and supporters of evidence-based medicine and plan to continue in this endeavor. The complete guideline document, which summarizes and evaluates the literature for each topic, and supplemental appendices (A-I) are available online at https://www.braintrauma.org/coma/guidelines.

Abstract When the fourth edition of the Brain Trauma Foundation's Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury were finalized in late 2016, it was known that the results of the RESCUEicp (Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension) randomized controlled trial of decompressive craniectomy would be public after the guidelines were released. The guideline authors decided to proceed with publication but to update the decompressive craniectomy recommendations later in the spirit of “living guidelines,” whereby topics are updated more frequently, and between new editions, when important new evidence is published. The update to the decompressive craniectomy chapter presented here integrates the findings of the RESCUEicp study as well as the recently published 12-mo outcome data from the DECRA (Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury) trial. Incorporation of these publications into the body of evidence led to the generation of 3 new level-IIA recommendations; a fourth previously presented level-IIA recommendation remains valid and has been restated. To increase the utility of the recommendations, we added a new section entitled Incorporating the Evidence into Practice. This summary of expert opinion provides important context and addresses key issues for practitioners, which are intended to help the clinician utilize the available evidence and these recommendations. The full guideline can be found at: https://braintrauma.org/guidelines/guidelines-for-the-management-of-severe-tbi-4th-ed#/.

In this trial, critically ill children were randomly assigned to either tight glycemic control or conventional glycemic control. There was no significant between-group difference in major clinical outcomes, although hypoglycemia was more common with tight glycemic control. Hyperglycemia is a common complication in critical illness and is associated with adverse outcomes. 1 – 5 Single-center, randomized trials have shown that reduction of blood glucose to normal levels with the use of insulin reduces morbidity and mortality among adults in surgical intensive care units (ICUs), 6 with similar effects on morbidity but not on mortality among adults in nonsurgical ICUs. 7 However, two meta-analyses 8 , 9 have failed to show a benefit, and a large, international, multicenter trial showed that tight glycemic control increased mortality. 10 Data on tight glucose control with the use of insulin in critically ill children have been lacking. One . . .

First aid for the unconscious but still breathing infant or child who has no other life-threatening condition is something everyone needs to know. Alternatively, is it about the treating physician's behaviour when presented with parents who did not report using the recovery position and therefore admitting the child in order to provide support and education?

Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are essential to the good conduct of many trials. Typically they comprise a small expert group which monitors safety, efficacy, progress and early outcome data as trials recruit. DMCs can recommend protocol revisions and early stopping of a trial. As DMC meetings usually consider unblinded interim data confidentially, their deliberations are seldom exposed to research scrutiny. Although there have been some case studies from trials from mixed specialties which offer insights into some of the common issues faced by DMCs, we have, however, little empirical information about the challenges faced within specific clinical settings. In-depth interviews with participants in the BRACELET Study on death and bereavement in neonatal intensive care trials produced qualitative accounts of experiences and views of a subgroup of 18 DMC members. These interviews explored views of DMC members in relation to the clinical context of neonatal intensive care and the conduct of neonatal intensive care trials. Interviewees felt that an understanding of both the neonatal intensive care setting and population was crucial in a DMC. They considered the neonatal intensive care research population especially vulnerable, and that outcomes that included both death and severe disability raised particular challenges rarely faced in other settings. In exploring these key outcomes they were mindful of the need to meet high scientific standards and the needs of babies in the trials and their families. DMC members discussed particular difficulties around the composite outcome of death and severe disability, especially when mortality data were available long before data on longer term disability. While statistical stopping guidance is helpful, DMC members described decisions about stopping, revising or continuing a trial being informed by a wider set of considerations and discussions than a pre-set p value. These included potentially competing needs of current trial participants and future patients, and reflections on the nature of benefit and harm. Given their cognisance of the potential impact and consequences of the decisions made by DMCs in this setting of life, death, and disability, interviewees commonly used the imagery of bravery, and described DMCs either holding or losing their nerve. DMCs for trials in other fields may also face difficult ethical trade-offs in monitoring composite outcomes. The experience from this sample of DMC members suggest that for neonatal intensive care trials there are some very specific challenges seldom faced elsewhere. The vulnerability of the population, and the different timescales for essential data becoming available to inform decisions, presented particular challenges. We suggest that it is important to consider the challenges raised in other settings to better understand the complex work of these committees and to prepare future generations of DMC members.

Objective To compare pediatric patients who presented with repeated status epilepticus episodes to patients with a single episode of status epilepticus and identify distinguishing clinical factors. Methods Retrospective analysis of a multicenter, prospective observational cohort of pediatric patients with status epilepticus between 2011 and 2019. Results Out of 504 status epilepticus episodes in 420 patients, 50 patients (10.3%) had repeated episodes of status epilepticus. The only predictor of repeated status epilepticus was a prior diagnosis of epilepsy. There was no difference in time to treatment with the first benzodiazepine in patients presenting with their first status epilepticus episode compared to their second status epilepticus episode [median 10 (interquartile range 5–30) vs. 14 (4.5–52.5) minutes; ( p  = 0.24)] or in time to treatment with the first non- benzodiazepine anti-seizure medication (ASM) [61 (37–125) vs. 71 (34.5-117.5) minutes; p  = 0.61]. In patients with repeated status epilepticus episodes with onset outside the hospital, the percentage of patients treated by caregivers did not improve between the first and second status epilepticus episode (61% vs. 60%, p  = 0.56). However, the time to first benzodiazepine was shorter in patients treated by caregivers compared to those who were not [5 (0–25) vs. 55 (41–120) minutes; p  < 0.001]. Conclusions Time to treatment with benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine ASM in patients with repeated episodes of status epilepticus does not improve for a second episode of status epilepticus, suggesting additional opportunities for intervention and teaching.

ObjectivesTo develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.DesignA panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.MethodsThe panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, “in our practice” statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.ResultsThe panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, “in our practice” statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.ConclusionsA large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Abstract The purpose of this work is to identify and synthesize research produced since the second edition of these Guidelines was published and incorporate new results into revised evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury in pediatric patients. This document provides an overview of our process, lists the new research added, and includes the revised recommendations. Recommendations are only provided when there is supporting evidence. This update includes 22 recommendations, 9 are new or revised from previous editions. New recommendations on neuroimaging, hyperosmolar therapy, analgesics and sedatives, seizure prophylaxis, temperature control/hypothermia, and nutrition are provided. None are level I, 3 are level II, and 19 are level III. The Clinical Investigators responsible for these Guidelines also created a companion algorithm that supplements the recommendations with expert consensus where evidence is not available and organizes possible interventions into first and second tier utilization. The complete guideline document and supplemental appendices are available electronically (https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000001735). The online documents contain summaries and evaluations of all the studies considered, including those from prior editions, and more detailed information on our methodology. New level II and level III evidence-based recommendations and an algorithm provide additional guidance for the development of local protocols to treat pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Our intention is to identify and institute a sustainable process to update these Guidelines as new evidence becomes available.

To identify factors associated with the use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and to establish which ICP-targetted therapies are being used in children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the United Kingdom. To evaluate current practice against recently published guidelines. Prospective data collection of clinical and demographic information from paediatric and adult intensive care units in the UK and Ireland admitting children (< 16 years) with TBI between February 2001 and August 2003. Detailed clinical information was obtained for 501 children, with information on the use of ICP monitoring available in 445. ICP monitoring was used in only 59% (75/127) of children presenting with an emergency room Glasgow Coma Scale of 8 or below. Large between centre variation was seen in the use of ICP monitoring, independent of severity of injury. There were 86 children who received ICP-targetted therapies without ICP monitoring. Wide between centre variation was found in the use of ICP-targetted therapies and in general aspects of management, such as fluid restriction, the use of muscle relaxants and prophylactic anticonvulsants. Intra-ventricular catheters are rarely placed (6% of cases); therefore cerebrospinal fluid drainage is seldom used as a first-line therapy for raised ICP. Jugular venous bulb oximetry (4%), brain microdialysis (< 1%) and brain tissue oxygen monitoring (< 1%) are rarely used in current practice. Contrary to published guidelines, moderate to severe hyperventilation is being used without monitoring for cerebral ischaemia. There is an urgent need for greater standardisation of practice across UK centres admitting children with severe TBI.

The purpose of this study was to identify and review clinical studies using transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography in children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). We identified 16 articles from January 2005 to July 2015 that met inclusion (TBI, five or more cases in case series, subjects <18 years old, TCD performed in PICU) and exclusion criteria (age not stated, data from subjects <18 years not separated from adult data, <85% study population <18 years in mixed population with adults). TCD parameters were used to assess autoregulation, intracranial pressure, and vasospasm, and to predict neurological outcome. Incidence of impaired autoregulation varied in severe TBI from 25% to 80%. Altered TCD flows and pulsatility index variably predicted intracranial hypertension across studies. Sonographic vasospasm in the middle cerebral artery occurred in 34% of 69 children with severe TBI. Outcomes seem to be related to altered TCD-derived flow velocities while in the ICU. TCD may be a useful tool to assess autoregulation, intracranial pressure, and vasospasm following TBI in the PICU. Further research is needed to establish gold standards and validate the findings in children. TCD may then impact day-to-day management in the PICU, and potentially improve outcomes in children with severe TBI.