Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionTherapeutic interventions for disorders of consciousness lack consistency; evidence supports non-invasive brain stimulation, but few studies assess neuromodulation in acute-to-subacute brain-injured patients. This study aims to validate the feasibility and assess the effect of a multi-session transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) intervention in subacute brain-injured patients on recovery of consciousness, related brain oscillations and brain network dynamics.Methods and analysesThe study is comprised of two phases: a validation phase (n=12) and a randomised controlled trial (n=138). Both phases will be conducted in medically stable brain-injured adult patients (traumatic brain injury and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy), with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤12 after continuous sedation withdrawal. Recruitment will occur at the intensive care unit of a Level 1 Trauma Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The intervention includes a 20 min 10 Hz tACS at 1 mA intensity or a sham session over parieto-occipital cortical sites, repeated over five consecutive days. The current’s frequency targets alpha brain oscillations (8–13 Hz), known to be associated with consciousness. Resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG) will be recorded four times daily for five consecutive days: pre and post-intervention, at 60 and 120 min post-tACS. Two additional recordings will be included: 24 hours and 1-week post-protocol. Multimodal measures (blood samples, pupillometry, behavioural consciousness assessments (Coma Recovery Scale-revised), actigraphy measures) will be acquired from baseline up to 1 week after the stimulation. EEG signal analysis will focus on the alpha bandwidth (8–13 Hz) using spectral and functional network analyses. Phone assessments at 3, 6 and 12 months post-tACS, will measure long-term functional recovery, quality of life and caregivers’ burden.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study has been granted by the Research Ethics Board of the CIUSSS du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (Project ID 2021–2279). The findings of this two-phase study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal and submitted for presentation at conferences. The trial’s results will be published on a public trial registry database (ClinicalTrials.gov).Trial registration number NCT05833568.

Among 241 persons with disorders of consciousness who had no observable response to commands, 25% had a verifiable response to commands on EEG or functional MRI, a condition known as cognitive motor dissociation.

In this randomized trial involving patients with traumatic brain injury and elevated intracranial pressure, therapeutic hypothermia plus standard care to reduce intracranial pressure did not result in outcomes better than those with standard care alone. In Europe, traumatic brain injury is the most common cause of permanent disability in people younger than 40 years of age, with the annual cost exceeding €33 billion (approximately $37.5 billion in U.S. dollars). 1 , 2 Recent statistics show a 21% increase in the incidence of traumatic brain injury during the past 5 years — three times greater than the increase in population. Despite this, management of traumatic brain injury has been underrepresented in medical research as compared with other health problems. 3 Consequently, there are few data to support the commonly used stage 2 interventions (Figure 1) for the management of . . .

In this randomized trial involving 324 patients with severe traumatic brain injury in Bolivia and Ecuador, guideline-based management with intracranial pressure monitoring was not superior to management based on imaging and clinical assessments. Although the monitoring of intracranial pressure is widely recognized as standard care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury, its use in guiding therapy has incomplete acceptance, even in high-income countries. 1 – 3 Successive editions of the guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury 4 – 7 have documented the inadequate evidence of efficacy, calling for randomized, controlled trials while also noting the ethical issues that would be posed if the control group consisted of patients who did not undergo monitoring. The identification of a group of intensivists in Latin America who routinely managed severe traumatic brain injury without using available . . .

Background Photobiomodulation using low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been tested as a new technique to optimize recovery of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study is to evaluate inhibitory attentional control after 18 sessions of active LLLT and compare with the placebo group (sham LLLT). Our exploratory analysis will evaluate the efficacy of the active LLLT on verbal and visuospatial episodic memory, executive functions (working memory, verbal and visuospatial fluency, attentional processes), and anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to the sham group. Methods/Design A randomized double-blinded trial will be made in 36 patients with moderate and severe TBI. The active LLLT will use an optical device composed of LEDs emitting 632 nm of radiation at the site with full potency of 830 mW. The cranial region with an area of 400 cm 2 will be irradiated for 30 min, giving a total dose per session of 3.74 J/cm 2 . The sham LLLT group contains only an LED device with power < 1 mW, only serving to simulate the irradiation. Each patient will be irradiated three times per week for six weeks, totaling 18 sessions. Neuropsychological assessments will be held one week before the beginning of the sessions, after one week, and three months after the end of LLLT sessions. Memory domain, attention, executive functioning, and visual construction will be evaluated, in addition to symptoms of depression, anxiety, and social demographics. Discussion LLLT has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique in significantly improving the memory, attention, and mood performance in healthy and neurologic patients. We expect that our trial can complement previous finds, as an effective low-cost therapy to improve cognitive sequel after TBI. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393079 . Registered on 20 February 2015.

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury and refractory intracranial hypertension were randomly assigned to either decompressive craniectomy or standard care. Craniectomy was associated with a significant reduction in intracranial pressure but worse outcomes. Among patients who are hospitalized with severe traumatic brain injury, 60% either die or survive with severe disability. 1 – 3 Of Australia's population of 22 million, 4 approximately 1000 patients annually sustain a severe traumatic brain injury, with associated lifetime costs estimated at $1 billion. 5 In the United States, the annual burden of traumatic brain injury is more than $60 billion. 6 After severe traumatic brain injury, medical and surgical therapies are performed to minimize secondary brain injury. 7 – 9 Increased intracranial pressure, which is typically caused by cerebral edema, is an important secondary insult. 7 , 9 , 10 Although few data regarding the monitoring of . . .

Background Untimely diagnosis of intracranial hypertension may lead to delays in therapy and worsening of outcome. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) detects variations in cerebral blood flow velocity which may correlate with intracranial pressure (ICP). We investigated if intracranial hypertension can be accurately excluded through use of TCD. Method This was a multicenter prospective pilot study in patients with acute brain injury requiring invasive ICP (ICPi) monitoring. ICP estimated with TCD (ICPtcd) was compared with ICPi in three separate time frames: immediately before ICPi placement, immediately after ICPi placement, and 3 hours following ICPi positioning. Sensitivity and specificity, and concordance correlation coefficient between ICPi and ICPtcd were calculated. Receiver operating curve (ROC) and the area under the curve (AUC) analyses were estimated after measurement averaging over time. Results A total of 38 patients were enrolled, and of these 12 (31.6%) had at least one episode of intracranial hypertension. One hundred fourteen paired measurements of ICPi and ICPtcd were gathered for analysis. With dichotomized ICPi (≤20 mmHg vs >20 mmHg), the sensitivity of ICPtcd was 100%; all measurements with high ICPi (>20 mmHg) also had a high ICPtcd values. Bland-Altman plot showed an overestimation of 6.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.08–7.30 mmHg) for ICPtcd compared to ICPi. AUC was 96.0% (95% CI 89.8–100%) and the estimated best threshold was at ICPi of 24.8 mmHg corresponding to a sensitivity 100% and a specificity of 91.2%. Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence that ICPtcd may accurately exclude intracranial hypertension in patients with acute brain injury. Future studies with adequate power are needed to confirm this result.

The inconsistent effect of hypothermia treatment on severe brain injury in previous trials might be because hypothermia was induced too late after injury. We aimed to assess whether very early induction of hypothermia improves outcome in patients with severe brain injury. The National Acute Brain Injury Study: Hypothermia II (NABIS: H II) was a randomised, multicentre clinical trial of patients with severe brain injury who were enrolled within 2·5 h of injury at six sites in the USA and Canada. Patients with non-penetrating brain injury who were 16–45 years old and were not responsive to instructions were randomly assigned (1:1) by a random number generator to hypothermia or normothermia. Patients randomly assigned to hypothermia were cooled to 35°C until their trauma assessment was completed. Patients who had none of a second set of exclusion criteria were either cooled to 33°C for 48 h and then gradually rewarmed or treated at normothermia, depending upon their initial treatment assignment. Investigators who assessed the outcome measures were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Glasgow outcome scale score at 6 months. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00178711. Enrolment occurred from December, 2005, to June, 2009, when the trial was terminated for futility. Follow-up was from June, 2006, to December, 2009. 232 patients were initially randomised a mean of 1·6 h (SD 0·5) after injury: 119 to hypothermia and 113 to normothermia. 97 patients (52 in the hypothermia group and 45 in the normothermia group) did not meet any of the second set of exclusion criteria. The mean time to 35°C for the 52 patients in the hypothermia group was 2·6 h (SD 1·2) and to 33°C was 4·4 h (1·5). Outcome was poor (severe disability, vegetative state, or death) in 31 of 52 patients in the hypothermia group and 25 of 56 in the normothermia group (relative risk [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·76–1·53; p=0·67). 12 patients in the hypothermia group died compared with eight in the normothermia group (RR 1·30, 95% CI 0·58–2·52; p=0·52). This trial did not confirm the utility of hypothermia as a primary neuroprotective strategy in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

On the basis of mixed results from previous trials, we assessed whether therapeutic hypothermia for 48–72 h with slow rewarming improved mortality in children after brain injury. In this phase 3, multicenter, multinational, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with severe traumatic brain injury who were younger than 18 years and could be enrolled within 6 h of injury. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly allocate patients (1:1; stratified by site and age [<6 years, 6–15 years, 16–17 years]) to either hypothermia (rapidly cooled to 32–33°C for 48–72 h, then rewarmed by 0·5–1·0°C every 12–24 h) or normothermia (maintained at 36·5–37·5°C). The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months, assessed by intention-to-treat analysis; secondary outcomes were global function at 3 months after injury using the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) and the GOS-extended pediatrics, and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Investigators assessing outcomes were masked to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00222742. The study was terminated early for futility after an interim data analysis on data for 77 patients (enrolled between Nov 1, 2007, and Feb 28, 2011): 39 in the hypothermia group and 38 in the normothermia group. We detected no between-group difference in mortality 3 months after injury (6 [15%] of 39 patients in the hypothermia group vs two [5%] of 38 patients in the normothermia group; p=0·15). Poor outcomes did not differ between groups (in the hypothermia group, 16 [42%] patients had a poor outcome by GOS and 18 [47%] had a poor outcome by GOS-extended paediatrics; in the normothermia group, 16 [42%] patients had a poor outcome by GOS and 19 [51%] of 37 patients had a poor outcome by GOS-extended paediatrics). We recorded no between-group differences in the occurrence of adverse events or serious adverse events. Hypothermia for 48 h with slow rewarming does not reduce mortality of improve global functional outcome after paediatric severe traumatic brain injury. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institutes of Health.

Accurately predicting functional outcomes for unresponsive patients with acute brain injury is a medical, scientific and ethical challenge. This prospective study assesses how a multimodal approach combining various numbers of behavioral, neuroimaging and electrophysiological markers affects the performance of outcome predictions. We analyzed data from 349 patients admitted to a tertiary neurointensive care unit between 2009 and 2021, categorizing prognoses as good, uncertain or poor, and compared these predictions with observed outcomes using the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOS-E, levels ranging from 1 to 8, with higher levels indicating better outcomes). After excluding cases with life-sustaining therapy withdrawal to mitigate the self-fulfilling prophecy bias, our findings reveal that a good prognosis, compared with a poor or uncertain one, is associated with better one-year functional outcomes (common odds ratio (95% CI) for higher GOS-E: OR = 14.57 (5.70–40.32), P  < 0.001; and 2.9 (1.56–5.45), P  < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, increasing the number of assessment modalities decreased uncertainty (OR = 0.35 (0.21–0.59), P  < 0.001) and improved prognostic accuracy (OR = 2.72 (1.18–6.47), P  = 0.011). Our results underscore the value of multimodal assessment in refining neuroprognostic precision, thereby offering a robust foundation for clinical decision-making processes for acutely brain-injured patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04534777 . Multimodal approaches combining various numbers of behavioral, neuroimaging and electrophysiological markers improves neuroprognosis performance in clinically unresponsive critical-care patients.