Journal Article

A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)

Taccone, Fabio Silvio, Ghajar, Jamshid, Chesnut, Randall M., Mayer, Stephan, Ullman, Jamie S., Patel, Mayur, Michael, Daniel B., Robertson, Claudia, Stein, Deborah, Wright, David W., Gao, Guoyi, Arrastia, Ramon Diaz, Shutter, Lori, Kitagawa, Ryan, Cooper, D. Jamie, Vespa, Paul, Bulger, Eileen, Tsai, Eve, Zammit, Christopher, Hawryluk, Gregory W. J., Figaji, Anthony, Timmons, Shelly, Harris, Odette, Manley, Geoffrey, Aguilera, Sergio, Diringer, Michael, Geocadin, Romergryko, Servadei, Franco, Videtta, Walter, Rubiano, Andres M., Okonkwo, David, Buki, Andras, Joseph, Mathew, Oddo, Mauro, Stocchetti, Nino, Sahuquillo, Juan, Meyfroidt, Geert, Citerio, Giuseppe, Hutchinson, Peter, Menon, David K., Hoffer, Alan, Rosenfeld, Jeffrey V.

2019

Overview

Background Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based. Methods We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists’ decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations. Results We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination. Conclusions Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.

• Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
• Subject: algorithm / Algorithms / Anesthesiology / Brain / brain injury / Conference Reports and Expert Panel / Conferences, meetings and seminars / consensus / Critical Care Medicine / Emergency Medicine / Head injuries / head trauma / Injuries / Intensive / Intensive care / Intracranial pressure / Management / Medical colleges / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Monitoring / Pain Medicine / Patient monitoring equipment / Pediatrics / Pneumology/Respiratory System / Pressure / protocol / Seattle / SIBICC / Surveys / tiers / Traffic models / Traumatic brain injury