Anaesthesiological strategies in elective craniotomy: randomized, equivalence, open trial – The NeuroMorfeo trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many studies have attempted to determine the <it>"best" </it>anaesthetic technique for neurosurgical procedures in patients without intracranial hypertension. So far, no study comparing intravenous (IA) with volatile-based neuroanaesthesia (VA) has been able to demonstrate major outcome differences nor a superiority of one of the two strategies in patients undergoing elective supratentorial neurosurgery. Therefore, current practice varies and includes the use of either volatile or intravenous anaesthetics in addition to narcotics. Actually the choice of the anaestesiological strategy depends only on the anaesthetists' preferences or institutional policies.</p> <p>This trial, named NeuroMorfeo, aims to assess the equivalence between volatile and intravenous anaesthetics for neurosurgical procedures.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>NeuroMorfeo is a multicenter, randomized, open label, controlled trial, based on an equivalence design. Patients aged between 18 and 75 years, scheduled for elective craniotomy for supratentorial lesion without signs of intracranial hypertension, in good physical state (ASA I-III) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) equal to 15, are randomly assigned to one of three anaesthesiological strategies (two VA arms, sevoflurane + fentanyl or sevoflurane + remifentanil, and one IA, propofol + remifentanil). The equivalence between intravenous and volatile-based neuroanaesthesia will be evaluated by comparing the intervals required to reach, after anaesthesia discontinuation, a modified Aldrete score ≥ 9 (primary end-point). Two statistical comparisons have been planned:</p> <p>1) sevoflurane + fentanyl vs. propofol + remifentanil;</p> <p>2) sevoflurane + remifentanil vs. propofol + remifentanil.</p> <p>Secondary end-points include: an assessment of neurovegetative stress based on (a) measurement of urinary catecholamines and plasma and urinary cortisol and (b) estimate of sympathetic/parasympathetic balance by power spectrum analyses of electrocardiographic tracings recorded during anaesthesia; intraoperative adverse events; evaluation of surgical field; postoperative adverse events; patient's satisfaction and analysis of costs.</p> <p>411 patients will be recruited in 14 Italian centers during an 18-month period.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We presented the development phase of this anaesthesiological on-going trial. The recruitment started December 4^th, 2007 and up to 4^th, December 2008, 314 patients have been enrolled.</p

European society of intensive care medicine study of therapeutic hypothermia (32-35 °C) for intracranial pressure reduction after traumatic brain injury (the Eurotherm3235Trial).

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is a major cause of death and severe disability worldwide with 1,000,000 hospital admissions per annum throughout the European Union.Therapeutic hypothermia to reduce intracranial hypertension may improve patient outcome but key issues are length of hypothermia treatment and speed of re-warming. A recent meta-analysis showed improved outcome when hypothermia was continued for between 48 hours and 5 days and patients were re-warmed slowly (1 °C/4 hours). Previous experience with cooling also appears to be important if complications, which may outweigh the benefits of hypothermia, are to be avoided. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial examining the effects of hypothermia 32-35 °C, titrated to reduce intracranial pressure 20 mmHg in accordance with the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines, 2007. DISCUSSION: The Eurotherm3235Trial is the most important clinical trial in critical care ever conceived by European intensive care medicine, because it was launched and funded by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and will be the largest non-commercial randomised controlled trial due to the substantial number of centres required to deliver the target number of patients. It represents a new and fundamental step for intensive care medicine in Europe. Recruitment will continue until January 2013 and interested clinicians from intensive care units worldwide can still join this important collaboration by contacting the Trial Coordinating Team via the trial website http://www.eurotherm3235trial.eu. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34555414

End-of-life practices in traumatic brain injury patients: Report of a questionnaire from the CENTER-TBI study

Purpose: We aimed to study variation regarding specific end-of-life (EoL) practices in the intensive care unit (ICU) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Materials and methods: Respondents from 67 hospitals participating in The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study completed several questionnaires on management of TBI patients. Results: In 60% of the centers, ≤50% of all patients with severe neurological damage dying in the ICU, die after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (LSM). The decision to withhold/withdraw LSM was made following multidisciplinary consensus in every center. Legal representatives/relatives played a role in the decision-making process in 81% of the centers. In 82% of the centers, age played a role in the decision to withhold/withdraw LSM. Furthermore, palliative therapy was initiated in 79% of the centers after the decision to withdraw LSM was made. Last, withholding/withdrawing LSM was, generally, more often considered after more time had passed, in a patient with TBI, who remained in a very poor prognostic condition. Conclusion: We found variation regarding EoL practices in TBI patients. These results provide insight into variability regarding important issues pertaining to EoL practices in TBI, which can be useful to stimulate discussions on EoL practices, comparative effectiveness research, and, ultimately, development of recommendations

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

Background Delirium is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The antipsychotic haloperidol is the most frequently used agent to treat delirium although this is not supported by solid evidence. The agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) trial investigates the effects of haloperidol versus placebo for the treatment of delirium in adult ICU patients. Methods This protocol describes the secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes up to day 90 of the AID-ICU trial. We will use Bayesian linear regression models for all count outcomes and Bayesian logistic regression models for all dichotomous outcomes. We will adjust for stratification variables (site and delirium subtype) and use weakly informative priors supplemented with sensitivity analyses using sceptical priors. We will present results as absolute differences (mean differences and risk differences) and relative differences (ratios of means and relative risks). Posteriors will be summarised using median values as point estimates and percentile-based 95% credibility intervals. Probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and clinically unimportant differences will be presented for all outcomes. Discussion The results of this secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the AID-ICU trial and facilitate a nuanced and probabilistic interpretation of the trial results.Peer reviewe

Sleep-like cortical OFF-periods disrupt causality and complexity in the brain of unresponsive wakefulness syndrome patients

peer reviewedUnresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) patients may retain intact portions of the thalamocortical system that are spontaneously active and reactive to sensory stimuli but fail to engage in complex causal interactions, resulting in loss of consciousness. Here, we show that loss of brain complexity after severe injuries is due to a pathological tendency of cortical circuits to fall into silence (OFF-period) upon receiving an input, a behavior typically observed during sleep. Spectral and phase domain analysis of EEG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals the occurrence of OFF-periods in the cortex of UWS patients (N = 16); these events never occur in healthy awake individuals (N = 20) but are similar to those detected in healthy sleeping subjects (N = 8). Crucially, OFF-periods impair local causal interactions, and prevent the build-up of global complexity in UWS. Our findings link potentially reversible local events to global brain dynamics that are relevant for pathological loss and recovery of consciousness. © 2018, The Author(s)

Fluid therapy in neurointensive care patients: ESICM consensus and clinical practice recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To report the ESICM consensus and clinical practice recommendations on fluid therapy in neurointensive care patients. DESIGN: A consensus committee comprising 22 international experts met in October 2016 during ESICM LIVES2016. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussions between the members of the committee subsequently served to discuss and develop the consensus process. METHODS: Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles generated. The consensus focused on three main topics: (1) general fluid resuscitation and maintenance in neurointensive care patients, (2) hyperosmolar fluids for intracranial pressure control, (3) fluid management in delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid haemorrhage. After an extensive literature search, the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system were applied to assess the quality of evidence (from high to very low), to formulate treatment recommendations as strong or weak, and to issue best practice statements when applicable. A modified Delphi process based on the integration of evidence provided by the literature and expert opinions-using a sequential approach to avoid biases and misinterpretations-was used to generate the final consensus statement. RESULTS: The final consensus comprises a total of 32 statements, including 13 strong recommendations and 17 weak recommendations. No recommendations were provided for two statements. CONCLUSIONS: We present a consensus statement and clinical practice recommendations on fluid therapy for neurointensive care patients

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) - Protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of haloperidol in patients with delirium in the ICU

Background Delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a common condition associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacologic intervention, but its use is not supported by firm evidence. Therefore, we are conducting Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (AID‐ICU) trial to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of ICU‐acquired delirium. Methods AID‐ICU is an investigator‐initiated, pragmatic, international, randomised, blinded, parallel‐group, trial allocating adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. Trial participants will receive intravenous 2.5 mg haloperidol three times daily or matching placebo (isotonic saline 0.9%) if they are delirious. If needed, a maximum of 20 mg/daily haloperidol/placebo is given. An escape protocol, not including haloperidol, is part of the trial protocol. The primary outcome is days alive out of the hospital within 90 days post‐randomisation. Secondary outcomes are number of days without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions to haloperidol, usage of escape medication, number of days alive without mechanical ventilation; mortality, health‐related quality‐of‐life and cognitive function at 1‐year follow‐up. A sample size of 1000 patients is required to detect a 7‐day improvement or worsening of the mean days alive out of the hospital, type 1 error risk of 5% and power 90%. Perspective The AID‐ICU trial is based on gold standard methodology applied to a large sample of clinically representative patients and will provide pivotal high‐quality data on the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment ICU‐acquired delirium

Early Osmotherapy in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury : An International Multicenter Study

The optimal osmotic agent to treat intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains uncertain. We aimed to test whether the choice of mannitol or hypertonic saline (HTS) as early (first 96 h) osmotherapy in these patients might be associated with a difference in mortality. We retrospectively analyzed data from 2015 from 14 tertiary intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, UK, and Europe treating severe TBI patients with intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and compared mortality in those who received mannitol only versus HTS only. We performed multi-variable analysis adjusting for site and illness severity (Injury Severity Score, extended IMPACT score, and mean ICP over the first 96 h) using Cox proportional hazards regression. We collected data on 262 patients and compared patients who received early osmotherapy with mannitol alone (n = 46) with those who received HTS alone (n = 46). Mannitol patients were older (median age, 49.2 (19.2) vs. 40.5 (16.8) years; p = 0.02), with higher Injury Severity Scores (42 (15.9) vs. 32.1 [11.3]; p = 0.001), and IMPACT-TBI predicted 6-month mortality (34.5% [23-46] vs. 25% [13-38]; p = 0.02), but had similar APACHE-II scores, and mean and maximum ICPs over the first 96 h. The unadjusted hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients receiving only mannitol was 3.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-7.03; p = 0.001). After adjustment for key mortality predictors, the hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients receiving only mannitol was 2.64 (95% CI, 0.96-7.30; p = 0.06). The choice of early osmotherapy in severe TBI patients may affect survival, or simply reflect clinician beliefs about their different roles, and warrants controlled investigation.Peer reviewe

Transcranial Doppler as a screening test to exclude intracranial hypertension in brain-injured patients: the IMPRESSIT-2 prospective multicenter international study

Background: Alternative noninvasive methods capable of excluding intracranial hypertension through use of transcranial Doppler (ICPtcd) in situations where invasive methods cannot be used or are not available would be useful during the management of acutely brain-injured patients. The objective of this study was to determine whether ICPtcd can be considered a reliable screening test compared to the reference standard method, invasive ICP monitoring (ICPi), in excluding the presence of intracranial hypertension. Methods: This was a prospective, international, multicenter, unblinded, diagnostic accuracy study comparing the index test (ICPtcd) with a reference standard (ICPi), defined as the best available method for establishing the presence or absence of the condition of interest (i.e., intracranial hypertension). Acute brain-injured patients pertaining to one of four categories: traumatic brain injury (TBI), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or ischemic stroke (IS) requiring ICPi monitoring, were enrolled in 16 international intensive care units. ICPi measurements (reference test) were compared to simultaneous ICPtcd measurements (index test) at three different timepoints: before, immediately after and 2 to 3&nbsp;h following ICPi catheter insertion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated at three different ICPi thresholds (&gt; 20, &gt; 22 and &gt; 25&nbsp;mmHg) to assess ICPtcd as a bedside real-practice screening method. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the area under the curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the discriminative accuracy and predictive capability of ICPtcd. Results: Two hundred and sixty-two patients were recruited for final analysis. Intracranial hypertension (&gt; 22&nbsp;mmHg) occurred in 87 patients (33.2%). The total number of paired comparisons between ICPtcd and ICPi was 687. The NPV was elevated (ICP &gt; 20&nbsp;mmHg = 91.3%, &gt; 22&nbsp;mmHg = 95.6%, &gt; 25&nbsp;mmHg = 98.6%), indicating high discriminant accuracy of ICPtcd in excluding intracranial hypertension. Concordance correlation between ICPtcd and ICPi was 33.3% (95% CI 25.6-40.5%), and Bland-Altman showed a mean bias of -3.3&nbsp;mmHg. The optimal ICPtcd threshold for ruling out intracranial hypertension was 20.5&nbsp;mmHg, corresponding to a sensitivity of 70% (95% CI 40.7-92.6%) and a specificity of 72% (95% CI 51.9-94.0%) with an AUC of 76% (95% CI 65.6-85.5%). Conclusions and relevance: ICPtcd has a high NPV in ruling out intracranial hypertension and may be useful to clinicians in situations where invasive methods cannot be used or not available. Trial registration: NCT02322970