Feasibility of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cardiopulmonary resuscitation by low volume centers in Belgium

Objective: To assess the feasibility of delivering extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) by low volume extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centers and to explore pre-ECPR predictors of survival. Methods: Between 2016 and 2020, we studied 21 ECPR patients admitted in 2 tertiary ECMO centers in Liège, Belgium. Our ECPR protocol was based on 6 prehospital criteria (no flow 15 mmHg, age < 65 years, and absence of comorbidities). A dedicated training, prehospital checklist and call number for 24/7 ECMO team assistance were implemented. Hemodynamics and blood gases on admission also were assessed. Results: Twenty-one (28%) out of 75 refractory OHCA patients referred were treated by ECPR, with a hospital survival rate of 43% (n = 9/21), comparable to ECPR results from the international extracorporeal life support organization registry. Transient return of spontaneous circulation before ECPR (89% in survivors vs 17% in non-survivors, P = 0.002) and higher initial serum bicarbonate (med [P25-P75] 14.0 [10.6-15.2] vs 7.5 [3.7-10.5] mmol/L, P = 0.019) or lower initial base deficit (14.9 [11.9-18.2] vs 21.6 [17.9-28.9] mmol/L, P = 0.039) were associated with a more favorable outcome. Conclusion: In low volume ECMO centers, the implementation of a specific ECPR protocol for refractory OHCA patients is feasible and provides potential clinical benefit. Highly selective inclusion criteria seem essential to select candidates for ECPR. Initial serum bicarbonate and base deficit integrating cumulative cell failure may be relevant pre-ECMO prognostic factors and require larger-scale evaluation. Keywords: extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest; prehospital emergency care

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study

PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.status: publishe

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study (vol 161, pg 453, 2019)

The collaborator names are inverted.status: publishe

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. CONCLUSION: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care.status: publishe

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

BackgroundNeurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe.MethodsA survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP).ResultsThe survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25mmHg, 18% 30mmHg, and 17% 20mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions.ConclusionDespite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care