Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Individualising therapy is an important challenge for intensive care of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Targeting a cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) tailored to optimise cerebrovascular autoregulation has been suggested as an attractive strategy on the basis of a large body of retrospective observational data. The objective of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of such a strategy compared with fixed thresholds which is the current standard of care from international consensus guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPPOpt Guided Therapy: Assessment of Target Effectiveness (COGiTATE) is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised, controlled trial coordinated from Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht (The Netherlands). The other original participating centres are Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge (UK), and University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven (Belgium). Adult severe TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring are randomised within the first 24 hours of admission in neurocritical care unit. For the control arm, the CPP target is the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines target (60-70 mm Hg); for the intervention group an automated CPP target is provided as the CPP at which the patient's cerebrovascular reactivity is best preserved (CPPopt). For a maximum of 5 days, attending clinicians review the CPP target 4-hourly. The main hypothesis of COGiTATE are: (1) in the intervention group the percentage of the monitored time with measured CPP within a range of 5 mm Hg above or below CPPopt will reach 36%; (2) the difference in between groups in daily therapy intensity level score will be lower or equal to 3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for each participating centre. The results will be presented at international scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982122

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

Outcome in patients perceived as receiving excessive care across different ethical climates: a prospective study in 68 intensive care units in Europe and the USA

Purpose: Whether the quality of the ethical climate in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves the identification of patients receiving excessive care and affects patient outcomes is unknown. Methods: In this prospective observational study, perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by clinicians working in 68 ICUs in Europe and the USA were collected daily during a 28-day period. The quality of the ethical climate in the ICUs was assessed via a validated questionnaire. We compared the combined endpoint (death, not at home or poor quality of life at 1 year) of patients with PECs and the time from PECs until written treatment-limitation decisions (TLDs) and death across the four climates defined via cluster analysis. Results: Of the 4747 eligible clinicians, 2992 (63%) evaluated the ethical climate in their ICU. Of the 321 and 623 patients not admitted for monitoring only in ICUs with a good (n = 12, 18%) and poor (n = 24, 35%) climate, 36 (11%) and 74 (12%), respectively were identified with PECs by at least two clinicians. Of the 35 and 71 identified patients with an available combined endpoint, 100% (95% CI 90.0–1.00) and 85.9% (75.4–92.0) (P = 0.02) attained that endpoint. The risk of death (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.20–2.92) or receiving a written TLD (HR 2.32, CI 1.11–4.85) in patients with PECs by at least two clinicians was higher in ICUs with a good climate than in those with a poor one. The differences between ICUs with an average climate, with (n = 12, 18%) or without (n = 20, 29%) nursing involvement at the end of life, and ICUs with a poor climate were less obvious but still in favour of the former. Conclusion: Enhancing the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU may improve both the identification of patients receiving excessive care and the decision-making process at the end of life

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Understanding coma in bacterial meningitis

status: publishe

Glucose Variability and Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background-Mean blood glucose (BG) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is an important predictor of inpatient mortality but does not capture glucose variability (GV), which has been shown to be independently associated with mortality in critically ill patients. Whether GV is associated with in-hospital mortality during AMI, after accounting for mean BG, is unknown. Methods and Results-We analyzed 18 563 consecutive patients with AMI with >= 3 BGs in the first 48 hours admitted to 61 US hospitals from 2000 to 2008. Five different GV metrics were compared for their ability to predict in-hospital mortality (range, standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, mean absolute glucose change, and average daily risk range) using hierarchical logistic regression models that sequentially adjusted for mean BG, hypoglycemia ( <70 mg/dL), and multiple patient characteristics. In unadjusted analyses, range and average daily risk range had the highest C-indices (0.620 for range, 0.635 for average daily risk range; both P <0.0001). Greater GV was associated with higher mortality for all metrics (eg, mortality was 3.8%, 5.5%, 7.1%, and 11.3% for increasing quartiles of range, P <0.0001); however, the association between GV and mortality for each metric was no longer significant after multivariable adjustment. In contrast, mean BG remained an important predictor of survival (P <0.001, all models). Conclusions-Although greater GV is associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI in unadjusted analyses, GV is no longer independently predictive after controlling for multiple patient factors, including mean BG. These findings suggest that GV does not provide additional prognostic value above and beyond already recognized risk factors for mortality during AMI. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012; 5: 550-557.

Glucose Variability and Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND: <0.0001). Greater GV was associated with higher mortality for all metrics (eg, mortality was 3.8%, 5.5%, 7.1%, and 11.3% for increasing quartiles of range, P<0.0001); however, the association between GV and mortality for each metric was no longer significant after multivariable adjustment. In contrast, mean BG remained an important predictor of survival (P<0.001, all models).ConclusionsAlthough greater GV is associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI in unadjusted analyses, GV is no longer independently predictive after controlling for multiple patient factors, including mean BG. These findings suggest that GV does not provide additional prognostic value above and beyond already recognized risk factors for mortality during AMI.status: publishe

Early Detection of Increased Intracranial Pressure Episodes in Traumatic Brain Injury: External Validation in an Adult and in a Pediatric Cohort

A model for early detection of episodes of increased intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury patients has been previously developed and validated based on retrospective adult patient data from the multicenter Brain-IT database. The purpose of the present study is to validate this early detection model in different cohorts of recently treated adult and pediatric traumatic brain injury patients.status: publishe

Early detection of increased intracranial pressure episodes in traumatic brain injury: external validation in an adult and in a pediatric cohort

Objective: A model for early detection of episodes of increased intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury patients has been previously developed and validated based on retrospective adult patient data from the multicenter Brain-IT database. The purpose of the present study is to validate this early detection model in different cohorts of recently treated adult and pediatric traumatic brain injury patients. Design: Prognostic modeling. Noninterventional, observational, retrospective study. Setting and Patients: The adult validation cohort comprised recent traumatic brain injury patients from San Gerardo Hospital in Monza (n = 50), Leuven University Hospital (n = 26), Antwerp University Hospital (n = 19), Tubingen University Hospital (n = 18), and Southern General Hospital in Glasgow (n = 8). The pediatric validation cohort comprised patients from neurosurgical and intensive care centers in Edinburgh and Newcastle (n = 79). Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The model's performance was evaluated with respect to discrimination, calibration, overall performance, and clinical usefulness. In the recent adult validation cohort, the model retained excellent performance as in the original study. In the pediatric validation cohort, the model retained good discrimination and a positive net benefit, albeit with a performance drop in the remaining criteria. Conclusions: The obtained external validation results confirm the robustness of the model to predict future increased intracranial pressure events 30 minutes in advance, in adult and pediatric traumatic brain injury patients. These results are a large step toward an early warning system for increased intracranial pressure that can be generally applied. Furthermore, the sparseness of this model that uses only two routinely monitored signals as inputs (intracranial pressure and mean arterial blood pressure) is an additional ass