TY - JOUR
T1 - A Method of Managing Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Absence of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring
T2 - The Imaging and Clinical Examination Protocol
AU - Chesnut, Randall M.
AU - Temkin, Nancy
AU - Dikmen, Sureyya
AU - Rondina, Carlos
AU - Videtta, Walter
AU - Petroni, Gustavo
AU - Lujan, Silvia
AU - Alanis, Victor
AU - Falcao, Antonio
AU - De La Fuenta, Gustavo
AU - Gonzalez, Luis
AU - Jibaja, Manuel
AU - Lavarden, Arturo
AU - Sandi, Freddy
AU - Mérida, Roberto
AU - Romero, Ricardo
AU - Pridgeon, Jim
AU - Barber, Jason
AU - Machamer, Joan
AU - Chaddock, Kelley
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright 2018, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2018.
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - The imaging and clinical examination (ICE) algorithm used in the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial is the only prospectively investigated clinical protocol for traumatic brain injury management without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. As the default literature standard, it warrants careful evaluation. We present the ICE protocol in detail and analyze the demographics, outcome, treatment intensity, frequency of intervention usage, and related adverse events in the ICE-protocol cohort. The 167 ICE protocol patients were young (median 29 years) with a median Glasgow Coma Scale motor score of 4 but with anisocoria or abnormal pupillary reactivity in 40%. This protocol produced outcomes not significantly different from those randomized to the monitor-based protocol (favorable 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Score in 39%; 41% mortality rate). Agents commonly employed to treat suspected intracranial hypertension included low-/moderate-dose hypertonic saline (72%) and mannitol (57%), mild hyperventilation (adjusted partial pressure of carbon dioxide 30-35 mm Hg in 73%), and pressors to maintain cerebral perfusion (62%). High-dose hyperosmotics or barbiturates were uncommonly used. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable to the BEST TRIP monitored group. Although this protocol should produce similar/acceptable results under circumstances comparable to those in the trial, influences such as longer pre-hospital times and non-specialist transport personnel, plus an intensive care unit model of aggressive physician-intensive care by small groups of neurotrauma-focused intensivists, which differs from most high-resource models, support caution in expecting the same results in dissimilar settings. Finally, this protocol's ICP-titration approach to suspected intracranial hypertension (vs. crisis management for monitored ICP) warrants further study.
AB - The imaging and clinical examination (ICE) algorithm used in the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial is the only prospectively investigated clinical protocol for traumatic brain injury management without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. As the default literature standard, it warrants careful evaluation. We present the ICE protocol in detail and analyze the demographics, outcome, treatment intensity, frequency of intervention usage, and related adverse events in the ICE-protocol cohort. The 167 ICE protocol patients were young (median 29 years) with a median Glasgow Coma Scale motor score of 4 but with anisocoria or abnormal pupillary reactivity in 40%. This protocol produced outcomes not significantly different from those randomized to the monitor-based protocol (favorable 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Score in 39%; 41% mortality rate). Agents commonly employed to treat suspected intracranial hypertension included low-/moderate-dose hypertonic saline (72%) and mannitol (57%), mild hyperventilation (adjusted partial pressure of carbon dioxide 30-35 mm Hg in 73%), and pressors to maintain cerebral perfusion (62%). High-dose hyperosmotics or barbiturates were uncommonly used. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable to the BEST TRIP monitored group. Although this protocol should produce similar/acceptable results under circumstances comparable to those in the trial, influences such as longer pre-hospital times and non-specialist transport personnel, plus an intensive care unit model of aggressive physician-intensive care by small groups of neurotrauma-focused intensivists, which differs from most high-resource models, support caution in expecting the same results in dissimilar settings. Finally, this protocol's ICP-titration approach to suspected intracranial hypertension (vs. crisis management for monitored ICP) warrants further study.
KW - global health
KW - intracranial hypertension
KW - intracranial pressure monitoring
KW - neurocritical care
KW - severe traumatic brain injury
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040453873&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/neu.2016.4472
DO - 10.1089/neu.2016.4472
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 28726590
AN - SCOPUS:85040453873
SN - 0897-7151
VL - 35
SP - 54
EP - 63
JO - Journal of Neurotrauma
JF - Journal of Neurotrauma
IS - 1
ER -