Consensus guidelines for lumbar puncture in patients with neurological diseases

Introduction Cerebrospinal fluid collection by lumbar puncture (LP) is performed in the diagnostic workup of several neurological brain diseases. Reluctance to perform the procedure is among others due to a lack of standards and guidelines to minimize the risk of complications, such as post-LP headache or back pain. Methods We provide consensus guidelines for the LP procedure to minimize the risk of complications. The recommendations are based on (1) data from a large multicenter LP feasibility study (evidence level II-2), (2) systematic literature review on LP needle characteristics and post-LP complications (evidence level II-2), (3) discussion of best practice within the Joint Programme Neurodegenerative Disease Research Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's Disease and Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis consortia (evidence level III). Results Our consensus guidelines address contraindications, as well as patient-related and procedure-related risk factors that can influence the development of post-LP complications. Discussion When an LP is performed correctly, the procedure is well tolerated and accepted with a low complication rate

Dutch Prospective Observational Study on Prehospital Treatment of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: The BRAIN-PROTECT Study Protocol

Background: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with a high mortality rate and those that survive commonly have permanent disability. While there is a broad consensus that appropriate prehospital treatment is crucial for a favorable neurological outcome, evidence to support currently applied treatment strategies is scarce. In particular, the relationship between prehospital treatments and patient outcomes is unclear. The BRAIN-PROTECT study therefore aims to identify prehospital treatment strategies associated with beneficial or detrimental outcomes. Here, we present the study protocol. Study Protocol: BRAIN-PROTECT is the acronym for BRAin INjury: Prehospital Registry of Outcome, Treatments and Epidemiology of Cerebral Trauma. It is a prospective observational study on the prehospital treatment of patients with suspected severe TBI in the Netherlands. Prehospital epidemiology, interventions, medication strategies, and nonmedical factors that may affect outcome are studied. Multivariable regression based modeling will be used to identify confounder-adjusted relationships between these factors and patient outcomes, including mortality at 30 days (primary outcome) or mortality and functional neurological outcome at 1 year (secondary outcomes). Patients in whom severe TBI is suspected during prehospital treatment (Glasgow Coma Scale score 8 in combination with a trauma mechanism or clinical findings suggestive of head injury) are identified by all four helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in the Netherlands. Patients are prospectively followed up in 9 participating trauma centers for up to one year. The manuscript reports in detail the objectives, setting, study design, patient inclusion, and data collection process. Ethical and juridical aspects, statistical considerations, as well as limitations of the study design are discussed. Discussion: Current prehospital treatment of patients with suspected severe TBI is based on marginal evidence, and optimal treatment is basically unknown. The BRAINPROTECT study provides an opportunity to evaluate and compare different treatment strategies with respect to patient outcomes. To our knowledge, this study project is the first large-scale prospective prehospital registry of patients with severe TBI that also collects long-term follow-up data and ma

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

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

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study

Abstract Background General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. Methods We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. Results The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36–40 mmHg (4.8–5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30–35 mmHg (4–4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). Conclusions Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome

Communicating uncertainties when disclosing diagnostic test results for (Alzheimer's) dementia in the memory clinic: The ABIDE project

Background: The development of novel diagnostics enables increasingly earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Timely diagnosis may benefit patients by reducing their uncertainty regarding the cause of symptoms, yet does not always provide patients with the desired certainty. Objective: To examine, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, uncertainty communicated by memory clinic clinicians in post-diagnostic testing consultations with patients and their caregivers. Methods: First, we identified all uncertainty expressions of 22 clinicians in audiotaped post-diagnostic testing consultations with 78 patients. Second, we statistically explored relationships between patient/clinician characteristics and uncertainty expressions. Third, the transcribed uncertainty expressions were qualitatively analysed, determining the topic to which they pertained, their source and initiator/elicitor (clinicians/patients/caregivers). Results: Within 57/78 (73%) consultations, clinicians expressed in total 115 uncertainties, of which 37% elicited by the patient or caregiver. No apparent relationships were found between patient/clinician characteristics and whether or not, and how often clinicians expressed uncertainty. Uncertainty expressions pertained to ten different topics, most frequently patient's diagnosis and symptom progression. Expressed uncertainty was mostly related to the unpredictability of the future and limits to available knowledge. Discussion and conclusions: The majority of clinicians openly discussed the limits of scientific knowledge and diagnostic testing with patients and caregivers in the dementia context. Noticeably, clinicians did not discuss uncertainty in about one quarter of consultations. More evidence is needed on the beneficial and/or harmful effects on patients of discussing uncertainty with them. This knowledge can be used to support clinicians to optimally convey uncertainty and facilitate patients' uncertainty management

Performance and complications of lumbar puncture in memory clinics: Results of the multicenter lumbar puncture feasibility study.

Lumbar puncture (LP) is increasingly performed in memory clinics. We investigated patient-acceptance of LP, incidence of and risk factors for post-LP complications in memory clinic populations

Tranexamic Acid After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Post-Hoc Analysis of the ULTRA Trial

Background and ObjectivesThe ULTRA trial showed that ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment after subarachnoid hemorrhage did not improve clinical outcome at 6 months. An expected proportion of the included patients experienced nonaneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. In this post hoc study, we will investigate whether ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage improves clinical outcome at 6 months.MethodsThe ULTRA trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment, conducted between July 24, 2013, and January 20, 2020. After confirmation of subarachnoid hemorrhage on noncontrast CT, patients were allocated to either ultra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment with usual care or usual care only. In this post hoc analysis, we included all ULTRA participants with a confirmed aneurysm on CT angiography and/or digital subtraction angiography. The primary endpoint was clinical outcome at 6 months, assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS), dichotomized into good (0-3) and poor (4-6) outcomes.ResultsOf the 813 ULTRA trial patients who experienced an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, 409 (50%) were assigned to the tranexamic acid group and 404 (50%) to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 233 of 405 (58%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 238 of 399 (60%) patients in the control group had a good clinical outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.24). None of the secondary outcomes showed significant differences between the treatment groups: excellent clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) (aOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.57-1.03), all-cause mortality at 30 days (aOR 0.91; 95% CI 0.65-1.28), and all-cause mortality at 6 months (aOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.80-1.52).DiscussionUltra-early and short-term tranexamic acid treatment did not improve clinical outcomes at 6 months in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and therefore cannot be recommended.Trial Registration InformationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02684812; submission date February 18, 2016, first patient enrollment on July 24, 2013).Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in patients presenting with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage