Regulation of the cerebral circulation: bedside assessment and clinical implications

The regulation of the cerebral circulation relies on the complex interplay between cardiovascular, respiratory, and neural physiology. In health, these physiologic systems act to maintain an adequate cerebral blood flow (CBF) through modulation of hydrodynamic parameters; the resistance of cerebral vessels, and the arterial, intracranial, and venous pressures. In critical illness, however, one or more of these parameters can be compromised raising the possibility of disturbed CBF regulation and its pathophysiologic sequelae. The rigorous assessment of the cerebral circulation requires not only measuring CBF and its hydrodynamic determinants but also assessing the stability of CBF in response to changes in arterial pressure (cerebral autoregulation), the reactivity of CBF to a vasodilator (CO₂ reactivity for example), and the dynamic regulation of arterial pressure (baroreceptor sensitivity). Ideally, cerebral circulation monitors in critical care should be continuous, physically robust, allow for both regional and global CBF assessment, and be conducive to application at the bedside. The regulation of the cerebral circulation is impaired not only in primary neurologic conditions that affect the vasculature such as subarachnoid haemorrhage and stroke, but also in conditions that affect the regulation of intracranial pressure (such as traumatic brain injury and hydrocephalus) or arterial blood pressure (sepsis, or cardiac dysfunction). Importantly, this impairment is often associated with poor patient outcome. At present, the assessment of the cerebral circulation is primarily used as a research tool to elucidate pathophysiology or prognosis. However, when combined with other physiologic signals and online analytical techniques, cerebral circulation monitoring has the appealing potential to not only prognosticate patients, but also direct critical care management.JD is supported by a Woolf Fisher scholarship (NZ). MC is partially supported by the NIHR

What comes first? The dynamics of cerebral oxygenation and blood flow in response to changes in arterial pressure and intracranial pressure after head injury

Background Brain tissue partial oxygen pressure (PbtO2) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) are novel methods to evaluate cerebral oxygenation. We studied the response patterns of PbtO2, NIRS, and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) to changes in arterial pressure (AP) and intracranial pressure (ICP). Methods Digital recordings of multimodal brain monitoring from 42 head-injured patients were retrospectively analysed. Response latencies and patterns of PbtO2, NIRS-derived parameters [tissue oxygenation index (TOI) and total haemoglobin index (THI)], and CBFV reactions to fluctuations of AP and ICP were studied. Results One hundred and twenty-one events were identified. In reaction to alterations of AP, ICP reacted first [4.3 s; inter-quartile range (IQR) −4.9 to 22.0 s, followed by NIRS-derived parameters and CBFV (10.9 s; IQR: −5.9 to 39.6 s, 12.1 s; IQR: −3.0 to 49.1 s, 14.7 s; IQR: −8.8 to 52.3 s for THI, CBFV, and TOI, respectively), with PbtO2 reacting last (39.6 s; IQR: 16.4 to 66.0 s). The differences in reaction time between NIRS parameters and PbtO2 were significant (P<0.001). Similarly when reactions to ICP changes were analysed, NIRS parameters preceded PbtO2 (7.1 s; IQR: −8.8 to 195.0 s, 18.1 s; IQR: −20.6 to 80.7 s, 22.9 s; IQR: 11.0 to 53.0 s for THI, TOI, and PbtO2, respectively). Two main patterns of responses to AP changes were identified. With preserved cerebrovascular reactivity, TOI and PbtO2 followed the direction of AP. With impaired cerebrovascular reactivity, TOI and PbtO2 decreased while AP and ICP increased. In 77% of events, the direction of TOI changes was concordant with PbtO2. Conclusions NIRS and transcranial Doppler signals reacted first to AP and ICP changes. The reaction of PbtO2 is delayed. The results imply that the analysed modalities monitor different stages of cerebral oxygenatio

Systemic, local, and imaging biomarkers of brain injury: more needed, and better use of those already established?

Much progress has been made over the past two decades in the treatment of severe acute brain injury, including traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage, resulting in a higher proportion of patients surviving with better outcomes. This has arisen from a combination of factors. These include improvements in procedures at the scene (pre-hospital) and in the hospital emergency department, advances in neuromonitoring in the intensive care unit, both continuously at the bedside and intermittently in scans, evolution and refinement of protocol-driven therapy for better management of patients, and advances in surgical procedures and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, many patients still experience varying degrees of long-term disabilities post-injury with consequent demands on carers and resources, and there is room for improvement. Biomarkers are a key aspect of neuromonitoring. A broad definition of a biomarker is any observable feature that can be used to inform on the state of the patient, e.g., a molecular species, a feature on a scan, or a monitoring characteristic, e.g., cerebrovascular pressure reactivity index. Biomarkers are usually quantitative measures, which can be utilized in diagnosis and monitoring of response to treatment. They are thus crucial to the development of therapies and may be utilized as surrogate endpoints in Phase II clinical trials. To date, there is no specific drug treatment for acute brain injury, and many seemingly promising agents emerging from pre-clinical animal models have failed in clinical trials. Large Phase III studies of clinical outcomes are costly, consuming time and resources. It is therefore important that adequate Phase II clinical studies with informative surrogate endpoints are performed employing appropriate biomarkers. In this article, we review some of the available systemic, local, and imaging biomarkers and technologies relevant in acute brain injury patients, and highlight gaps in the current state of knowledge.We gratefully acknowledge financial support as follows. Research support: the Medical Research Council (MRC, Grant Nos. G0600986 ID79068 and G1002277 ID98489) and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR BRC) Cambridge (Neuroscience Theme; Brain Injury and Repair Theme). Authors’ support: Keri Linda H. Carpenter – NIHR BRC Cambridge (Neuroscience Theme; Brain Injury and Repair Theme); Ibrahim Jalloh – MRC (Grant no. G1002277 ID 98489) and NIHR BRC Cambridge; Adel Helmy – MRC/Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Research Training Fellowship (Grant no. G0802251) and Raymond and Beverly Sackler Fellowship; Virginia F. J. Newcombe–Health Foundation/Academy of Medical Sciences Clinician Scientist Fellowship; Richard J. Shannon–NIHR BRC (Neuroscience Theme; Brain Injury and Repair Theme); Angelos G. Kolias–Royal College of Surgeons of England Research Fellowship, NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship, and a Raymond and Beverly Sackler Studentship; David Krishna Menon–NIHR Senior Investigator Award; Peter J. Hutchinson – NIHR Research Professorship, Academy of Medical Sciences/Health Foundation Senior Surgical Scientist Fellowship.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneur.2015.00026/full#h13

Management evaluation of metastasis in the brain (MEMBRAIN)—a United Kingdom and Ireland prospective, multicenter observational study

Background: In recent years an increasing number of patients with cerebral metastasis (CM) have been referred to the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team (NMDT). Our aim was to obtain a national picture of CM referrals to assess referral volume and quality and factors affecting NMDT decision making. / Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study including all adult patients referred to NMDT with 1 or more CM was conducted. Data were collected in neurosurgical units from November 2017 to February 2018. Demographics, primary disease, KPS, imaging, and treatment recommendation were entered into an online database. / Results: A total of 1048 patients were analyzed from 24 neurosurgical units. Median age was 65 years (range, 21-93 years) with a median number of 3 referrals (range, 1-17 referrals) per NMDT. The most common primary malignancies were lung (36.5%, n = 383), breast (18.4%, n = 193), and melanoma (12.0%, n = 126). A total of 51.6% (n = 541) of the referrals were for a solitary metastasis and resulted in specialist intervention being offered in 67.5% (n = 365) of cases. A total of 38.2% (n = 186) of patients being referred with multiple CMs were offered specialist treatment. NMDT decision making was associated with number of CMs, age, KPS, primary disease status, and extent of extracranial disease (univariate logistic regression, P < .001) as well as sentinel location and tumor histology (P < .05). A delay in reaching an NMDT decision was identified in 18.6% (n = 195) of cases. / Conclusions: This study demonstrates a changing landscape of metastasis management in the United Kingdom and Ireland, including a trend away from adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy and specialist intervention being offered to a significant proportion of patients with multiple CMs. Poor quality or incomplete referrals cause delay in NMDT decision making

The relationship between the time of cerebral desaturation episodes and outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a preliminary study.

In this preliminary study we investigated the relationship between the time of cerebral desaturation episodes (CDEs), the severity of the haemorrhage, and the short-term outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). Thirty eight patents diagnosed with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed in this study. Regional cerebral oxygenation (rSO2) was assessed using near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). A CDE was defined as rSO2 < 60% with a duration of at least 30 min. The severity of the aSAH was assessed using the Hunt and Hess scale and the short-term outcome was evaluated utilizing the Glasgow Outcome Scale. CDEs were found in 44% of the group. The total time of the CDEs and the time of the longest CDE on the contralateral side were longer in patients with severe versus moderate aSAH [h:min]: 8:15 (6:26-8:55) versus 1:24 (1:18-4:18), p = 0.038 and 2:05 (2:00-5:19) versus 0:48 (0:44-2:12), p = 0.038. The time of the longest CDE on the ipsilateral side was longer in patients with poor versus good short-term outcome [h:min]: 5:43 (3:05-9:36) versus 1:47 (0:42-2:10), p = 0.018. The logistic regression model for poor short-term outcome included median ABP, the extent of the haemorrhage in the Fisher scale and the time of the longest CDE. We have demonstrated that the time of a CDE is associated with the severity of haemorrhage and short-term outcome in aSAH patients. A NIRS measurement may provide valuable predictive information and could be considered as additional method of neuromonitoring of patients with aSAH

Neurosurgical randomized trials in low-and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: The setting of a randomized trial can determine whether its findings are generalizable and can therefore apply to different settings. The contribution of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to neurosurgical randomized trials has not been systematically described before.OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic analysis of design characteristics and methodology, funding source, and interventions studied between trials led by and/or conducted in high-income countries (HICs) vs LMICs.METHODS: From January 2003 to July 2016, English-language trials with >5 patients assessing any one neurosurgical procedure against another procedure, nonsurgical treatment, or no treatment were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Income classification for each country was assessed using the World Bank Atlas method.RESULTS: A total of 73.3% of the 397 studies that met inclusion criteria were led by HICs, whereas 26.7% were led by LMICs. Of the 106 LMIC-led studies, 71 were led by China. If China is excluded, only 8.8% were led by LMICs. HIC-led trials enrolled a median of 92 patients vs a median of 65 patients in LMIC-led trials. HIC-led trials enrolled from 7.6 sites vs 1.8 sites in LMIC-led studies. Over half of LMIC-led trials were institutionally funded (54.7%). The majority of both HIC- and LMIC-led trials evaluated spinal neurosurgery, 68% and 71.7%, respectively.CONCLUSION: We have established that there is a substantial disparity between HICs and LMICs in the number of published neurosurgical trials. A concerted effort to invest in research capacity building in LMICs is an essential step towards ensuring context- and resource-specific high-quality evidence is generated.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie