Neurocritical care management supported by multimodal brain monitoring after acute brain injury
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury.
METHODS: Patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care units were included. Neurocritical care unit management was compared to general intensive care unit management. Patients managed with multimodal brain monitoring and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure were compared with general management patients. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow outcome scale score of 4 or 5.
RESULTS: Among 389 patients, 237 were admitted to the neurocritical care unit, and 152 were admitted to the general intensive care unit. Neurocritical care unit management patients had a lower risk of poor outcome (OR = 0.228). A subgroup of 69 patients with multimodal brain monitoring (G1) was compared with the remaining patients (G2). In the G1 and G2 groups, 59% versus 23% of patients, respectively, had a good outcome at intensive care unit discharge; 64% versus 31% had a good outcome at 28 days; 76% versus 50% had a good outcome at 3 months (p < 0.001); and 77% versus 58% had a good outcome at 6 months (p = 0.005). When outcomes were adjusted by SAPS II severity score, using good outcome as the dependent variable, the results were as follows: for G1 compared to G2, the OR was 4.607 at intensive care unit discharge (p < 0.001), 4.22 at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3.250 at 3 months (p = 0.001) and 2.529 at 6 months (p = 0.006). Patients with optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management (n = 127) had a better outcome at all points of evaluation. Mortality for those patients was significantly lower at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3 months (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Multimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:35 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Critical care science - 35(2023), 2 vom: 15. Apr., Seite 196-202 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Monteiro, Elisabete [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 02.11.2023 Date Revised 02.11.2023 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM362099618 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM362099618 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226090527.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1206.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM362099618 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37712809 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S2965-27742023000200196 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Monteiro, Elisabete |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Neurocritical care management supported by multimodal brain monitoring after acute brain injury |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 02.11.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 02.11.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care units were included. Neurocritical care unit management was compared to general intensive care unit management. Patients managed with multimodal brain monitoring and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure were compared with general management patients. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow outcome scale score of 4 or 5 | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Among 389 patients, 237 were admitted to the neurocritical care unit, and 152 were admitted to the general intensive care unit. Neurocritical care unit management patients had a lower risk of poor outcome (OR = 0.228). A subgroup of 69 patients with multimodal brain monitoring (G1) was compared with the remaining patients (G2). In the G1 and G2 groups, 59% versus 23% of patients, respectively, had a good outcome at intensive care unit discharge; 64% versus 31% had a good outcome at 28 days; 76% versus 50% had a good outcome at 3 months (p < 0.001); and 77% versus 58% had a good outcome at 6 months (p = 0.005). When outcomes were adjusted by SAPS II severity score, using good outcome as the dependent variable, the results were as follows: for G1 compared to G2, the OR was 4.607 at intensive care unit discharge (p < 0.001), 4.22 at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3.250 at 3 months (p = 0.001) and 2.529 at 6 months (p = 0.006). Patients with optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management (n = 127) had a better outcome at all points of evaluation. Mortality for those patients was significantly lower at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3 months (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.001) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Multimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ferreira, António |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mendes, Edite Raquel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Silva, Sofia Rocha E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maia, Isabel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dias, Cláudia Camila |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Czosnyka, Marek |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Paiva, José Artur |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dias, Celeste |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Critical care science |d 2023 |g 35(2023), 2 vom: 15. Apr., Seite 196-202 |w (DE-627)NLM36209876X |x 2965-2774 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:35 |g year:2023 |g number:2 |g day:15 |g month:04 |g pages:196-202 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 35 |j 2023 |e 2 |b 15 |c 04 |h 196-202 | ||