HeadPoST: Rightly positioned, or flat out wrong?

ObjectiveTo critique the Head Positioning in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) study methods in relation to preceding research findings in an aim to clarify the potential efficacy of positioning interventions and direction for future research.MethodsHead positioning research prior to the conduct of HeadPoST was reviewed by a team of international stroke experts, and methods and findings were compared to HeadPoST.ResultsMethods used to select HeadPoST patients differ substantially from those used in original head positioning studies, in particular enrollment of all types of stroke. HeadPoST enrolled primarily minor strokes (median NIH Stroke Scale 4, interquartile range [IQR] 2-8) without vascular imaging confirmation of subtype; elapsed time from stroke symptom onset to the initiation of intervention was late (median 14 hours, IQR 5-35), and time from hospital admission to enrollment was delayed (median 7 hours, IQR 2-26). Intervention integrity was not reported, including ability to achieve/maintain 30° head elevation in beds lacking head elevation capabilities. Deterioration or improvement associated with the intervention is unknown as serial assessments were not completed, and the trial's 3-month outcome was powered using unrelated study data.ConclusionsThe design of HeadPoST was suboptimal to measure differences produced by the intervention. Future head positioning trials in discrete patient cohorts (in particular, large vessel occlusion) with endpoints supported by pilot work are required to understand the efficacy of this simple yet potentially important intervention. © 2018 American Academy of Neurology

Worldwide Organization of Neurocritical Care: Results from the PRINCE Study Part 1.

Neurocritical care focuses on the care of critically ill patients with an acute neurologic disorder and has grown significantly in the past few years. However, there is a lack of data that describe the scope of practice of neurointensivists and epidemiological data on the types of patients and treatments used in neurocritical care units worldwide. To address these issues, we designed a multicenter, international, point-prevalence, cross-sectional, prospective, observational, non-interventional study in the setting of neurocritical care (PRINCE Study). In this manuscript, we analyzed data from the initial phase of the study that included registration, hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) organizations. We present here descriptive statistics to summarize data from the registration case report form. We performed the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn procedure to test for differences in practices among world regions. We analyzed information submitted by 257 participating sites from 47 countries. The majority of those sites, 119 (46.3%), were in North America, 44 (17.2%) in Europe, 34 (13.3%) in Asia, 9 (3.5%) in the Middle East, 34 (13.3%) in Latin America, and 14 (5.5%) in Oceania. Most ICUs are from academic institutions (73.4%) located in large urban centers (44% > 1 million inhabitants). We found significant differences in hospital and ICU organization, resource allocation, and use of patient management protocols. The highest nursing/patient ratio was in Oceania (100% 1:1). Dedicated Advanced Practiced Providers are mostly present in North America (73.7%) and are uncommon in Oceania (7.7%) and the Middle East (0%). The presence of dedicated respiratory therapist is common in North America (85%), Middle East (85%), and Latin America (84%) but less common in Europe (26%) and Oceania (7.7%). The presence of dedicated pharmacist is highest in North America (89%) and Oceania (85%) and least common in Latin America (38%). The majority of respondents reported having a dedicated neuro-ICU (67% overall; highest in North America: 82%; and lowest in Oceania: 14%). The PRINCE Study results suggest that there is significant variability in the delivery of neurocritical care. The study also shows it is feasible to undertake international collaborations to gather global data about the practice of neurocritical care

Global Survey of Outcomes of Neurocritical Care Patients: Analysis of the PRINCE Study Part 2.

Neurocritical care is devoted to the care of critically ill patients with acute neurological or neurosurgical emergencies. There is limited information regarding epidemiological data, disease characteristics, variability of clinical care, and in-hospital mortality of neurocritically ill patients worldwide. We addressed these issues in the Point PRevalence In Neurocritical CarE (PRINCE) study, a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. We recruited patients from various intensive care units (ICUs) admitted on a pre-specified date, and the investigators recorded specific clinical care activities they performed on the subjects during their first 7 days of admission or discharge (whichever came first) from their ICUs and at hospital discharge. In this manuscript, we analyzed the final data set of the study that included patient admission characteristics, disease type and severity, ICU resources, ICU and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. We present descriptive statistics to summarize data from the case report form. We tested differences between geographically grouped data using parametric and nonparametric testing as appropriate. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We analyzed data from 1545 patients admitted to 147 participating sites from 31 countries of which most were from North America (69%, N = 1063). Globally, there was variability in patient characteristics, admission diagnosis, ICU treatment team and resource allocation, and in-hospital mortality. Seventy-three percent of the participating centers were academic, and the most common admitting diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (13%). The majority of patients were male (59%), a half of whom had at least two comorbidities, and median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality included age (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04); lower GCS (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.16 for every point reduction in GCS); pupillary reactivity (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.23 for bilateral unreactive pupils); admission source (emergency room versus direct admission [OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.75]; admission from a general ward versus direct admission [OR 5.85; 95% CI, 2.75 to 12.45; and admission from another ICU versus direct admission [OR 3.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 8.8]); and the absence of a dedicated neurocritical care unit (NCCU) (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47). PRINCE is the first study to evaluate care patterns of neurocritical patients worldwide. The data suggest that there is a wide variability in clinical care resources and patient characteristics. Neurological severity of illness and the absence of a dedicated NCCU are independent predictors of in-patient mortality

Cardiovascular and pulmonary complications of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Cardiopulmonary complications after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage negatively affect overall morbidity and mortality. An electronic literature search was performed for English-language articles focused on cardiopulmonary complications with subarachnoid hemorrhage published through October 2010. A total of 278 citations were identified, including 72 clinical studies. In most cases, study quality was low or very low. Cardiac injury, evidenced by an elevation in troponin levels, is reported in about one-third of patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Arrhythmias also occur in about one-third of patients after subarachnoid hemorrhage. The incidence of pulmonary complications, especially neurogenic pulmonary edema, is more difficult to establish from available literature. Cardiopulmonary complications have been linked to worsened clinical outcome, suggesting a role for cardiac monitoring and interventions

Hemodynamic management of subarachnoid hemorrhage

Hemodynamic augmentation therapy is considered standard treatment to help prevent and treat vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia. Standard triple- H therapy combines volume expansion (hypervolemia), blood pressure augmentation (hypertension), and hemodilution. An electronic literature search was conducted of English-language papers published between 2000 and October 2010 that focused on hemodynamic augmentation therapies in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Among the eligible reports identified, 11 addressed volume expansion, 10 blood pressure management, 4 inotropic therapy, and 12 hemodynamic augmentation in patients with unsecured aneurysms. While hypovolemia should be avoided, hypervolemia did not appear to confer additional benefits over normovolemic therapy, with an excess of side effects occurring in patients treated with hypervolemic targets. Overall, hypertension was associated with higher cerebral blood flow, regardless of volume status (normo- or hypervolemia), with neurological symptom reversal seen in two-thirds of treated patients. Limited data were available for evaluating inotropic agents or hemodynamic augmentation in patients with additional unsecured aneurysms. In the context of sparse data, no incremental risk of aneurysmal rupture has been reported with the induction of hemodynamic augmentation