Search

Abstract Acute brain injuries, such as traumatic brain injury and ischemic and hemorragic stroke, are a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. While characterized by clearly distict primary events—vascular damage in strokes and biomechanical damage in traumatic brain injuries—they share common secondary injury mechanisms influencing long-term outcomes. Growing evidence suggests that a more personalized approach to optimize energy substrate delivery to the injured brain and prognosticate towards families could be beneficial. In this context, continuous invasive and/or non-invasive neuromonitoring, together with clinical evaluation and neuroimaging to support strategies that optimize cerebral blood flow and metabolic delivery, as well as approaches to neuroprognostication are gaining interest. Recently, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine organized a 2-day course focused on a practical case-based clinical approach of acute brain-injured patients in different scenarios and on future perspectives to advance the management of this population. The aim of this manuscript is to update clinicians dealing with acute brain injured patients in the intensive care unit, describing current knowledge and clinical practice based on the insights presented during this course.

Abstract Background The early management of polytrauma patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a major challenge. Sparse data is available to provide optimal care in this scenario and worldwide variability in clinical practice has been documented in recent studies. Methods A multidisciplinary consensus panel of physicians selected for their established clinical and scientific expertise in the acute management of tSCI polytrauma patients with different specializations was established. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) endorsed the consensus, and a modified Delphi approach was adopted. Results A total of 17 statements were proposed and discussed. A consensus was reached generating 17 recommendations (16 strong and 1 weak). Conclusions This consensus provides practical recommendations to support a clinician’s decision making in the management of tSCI polytrauma patients.

Abstract Background In critically ill patients, measured creatinine clearance (CrCl) is the most reliable method to evaluate glomerular filtration rate in routine clinical practice and may vary subsequently on a day-to-day basis. We developed and externally validated models to predict CrCl one day ahead and compared them with a reference reflecting current clinical practice. Methods A gradient boosting method (GBM) machine-learning algorithm was used to develop the models on data from 2825 patients from the EPaNIC multicenter randomized controlled trial database. We externally validated the models on 9576 patients from the University Hospitals Leuven, included in the M@tric database. Three models were developed: a “Core” model based on demographic, admission diagnosis, and daily laboratory results; a “Core + BGA” model adding blood gas analysis results; and a “Core + BGA + Monitoring” model also including high-resolution monitoring data. Model performance was evaluated against the actual CrCl by mean absolute error (MAE) and root-mean-square error (RMSE). Results All three developed models showed smaller prediction errors than the reference. Assuming the same CrCl of the day of prediction showed 20.6 (95% CI 20.3–20.9) ml/min MAE and 40.1 (95% CI 37.9–42.3) ml/min RMSE in the external validation cohort, while the developed model having the smallest RMSE (the Core + BGA + Monitoring model) had 18.1 (95% CI 17.9–18.3) ml/min MAE and 28.9 (95% CI 28–29.7) ml/min RMSE. Conclusions Prediction models based on routinely collected clinical data in the ICU were able to accurately predict next-day CrCl. These models could be useful for hydrophilic drug dosage adjustment or stratification of patients at risk. Trial registration. Not applicable.

Introduction: Cerebrovascular autoregulation (CA) capacity can be impaired in the aftermath of acute brain injuries. Altered physiological states, such as hypo- and hypercapnia, affect CA. Although these effects have been demonstrated in several animal experiments, the exact effect of PaCO₂ on the plateau of cerebral blood flow (CBF) across the spectrum of arterial blood pressures has not been fully disclosed. Research question: The aim was to explore pial vasodynamics in response to changing PaCO₂ in a porcine cranial window model, as preparation for an experimental setup in which the CBF plateau position is investigated under different PaCO₂ conditions. Material and methods: Five piglets were brought under anesthesia, intubated, ventilated and instrumented with a cranial window through which pial arteriolar diameters could be microscopically observed. By changing ventilation to either hyper- or hypoventilation we were able to investigate a range of PaCO2 from 25 till 90 mmHg. Results: Altering the respiratory rate to manipulate PaCO₂ by ventilation appeared to be feasible and reliable. Discussion and conclusion: We found that ETCO₂ reliably represents PaCO₂ in our model. Pial arteriolar diameter changes followed the direction of PaCO₂ changes, but the effect of PaCO₂ on the diameters was not linear. Only in the hypercapnia setting did we observe a clear and consistent vasodilation of the pial arterioles.

Abstract Background Severe traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients should be primarily admitted to a hub trauma center (hospital with neurosurgical capabilities) to allow immediate delivery of appropriate care in a specialized environment. Sometimes, severe TBI patients are admitted to a spoke hospital (hospital without neurosurgical capabilities), and scarce data are available regarding the optimal management of severe isolated TBI patients who do not have immediate access to neurosurgical care. Methods A multidisciplinary consensus panel composed of 41 physicians selected for their established clinical and scientific expertise in the acute management of TBI patients with different specializations (anesthesia/intensive care, neurocritical care, acute care surgery, neurosurgery and neuroradiology) was established. The consensus was endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery, and a modified Delphi approach was adopted. Results A total of 28 statements were proposed and discussed. Consensus was reached on 22 strong recommendations and 3 weak recommendations. In three cases, where consensus was not reached, no recommendation was provided. Conclusions This consensus provides practical recommendations to support clinician’s decision making in the management of isolated severe TBI patients in centers without neurosurgical capabilities and during transfer to a hub center.

Abstract Background The optimal hemodynamic targets and management of patients with acute brain injury are not completely elucidated, but recent evidence points to important impact on clinical outcomes. We performed an international survey with the aim to investigate the practice in the hemodynamic targets, monitoring, and management of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Methods This survey was endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care (ESICM). An electronic questionnaire of 76 questions divided in 4 sections (general information, AIS, ICH, SAH specific questions) was available between January 2022 to March 2022 on the ESICM website. Results One hundred fifty-four healthcare professionals from 36 different countries and at least 98 different institutions answered the survey. Routine echocardiography is routinely performed in 37% of responders in AIS, 34% in ICH and 38% in SAH. Cardiac output monitoring is used in less than 20% of cases by most of the responders. Cardiovascular complications are the main reason for using advanced hemodynamic monitoring, and norepinephrine is the most common drug used to increase arterial blood pressure. Most responders target fluid balance to neutral (62% in AIS, 59% in ICH,44% in SAH), and normal saline is the most common fluid used. Large variability was observed regarding the blood pressure targets. Conclusions Hemodynamic management and treatment in patients with acute brain injury from cerebrovascular diseases vary largely in clinical practice. Further research is required to provide clear guidelines to physicians for the hemodynamic optimization of this group of patients.

Abstract Background 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.

The ARC predictor is a prediction model for augmented renal clearance (ARC) on the next intensive care unit (ICU) day that showed good performance in a general ICU setting. In this study, we performed a retrospective external validation of the ARC predictor in critically ill coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU of the University Hospitals Leuven from February 2020 to January 2021. All patient-days that had serum creatinine levels available and measured creatinine clearance on the next ICU day were enrolled. The performance of the ARC predictor was evaluated using discrimination, calibration, and decision curves. A total of 120 patients (1064 patient-days) were included, and ARC was found in 57 (47.5%) patients, corresponding to 246 (23.1%) patient-days. The ARC predictor demonstrated good discrimination and calibration (AUROC of 0.86, calibration slope of 1.18, and calibration-in-the-large of 0.14) and a wide clinical-usefulness range. At the default classification threshold of 20% in the original study, the sensitivity and specificity were 72% and 81%, respectively. The ARC predictor is able to accurately predict ARC in critically ill COVID-19 patients. These results support the potential of the ARC predictor to optimize renally cleared drug dosages in this specific ICU population. Investigation of dosing regimen improvement was not included in this study and remains a challenge for future studies.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic reached Europe in early 2020. Convalescent plasma is used without a consistent evidence of efficacy. Our hypothesis is that passive immunization with plasma collected from patients having contracted COVID-19 and developed specific neutralizing antibodies may alleviate symptoms and reduce mortality in patients treated with mechanical ventilation for severe respiratory failure during the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Methods We plan to include 500 adult patients, hospitalized in 16 Belgian intensive care units between September 2020 and 2022, diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, under mechanical ventilation for less than 5 days and a clinical frailty scale less than 6. The study treatment will be compared to standard of care and allocated by randomization in a 1 to 1 ratio without blinding. The main endpoint will be mortality at day 28. We will perform an intention to treat analysis. The number of patients to include is based on an expected mortality rate at day 28 of 40 percent and an expected relative reduction with study intervention of 30 percent with α risk of 5 percent and β risk of 20 percent. Discussion This study will assess the efficacy of plasma in the population of mechanically ventilated patients. A stratification on the delay from mechanical ventilation and inclusion will allow to approach the optimal time use. Selecting convalescent plasmas with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 will allow a homogeneous study treatment. The inclusion in the study is based on the consent of the patient or his/her legal representative, and the approval of the Investigational Review Board of the University hospital of Liège, Belgium. A data safety monitoring board (DSMB) has been implemented. Interim analyses have been planned at 100, 2002, 300 and 400 inclusions in order to decide whether the trail should be discontinued prematurely for ethical issues. We plan to publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal and to present them at national and international conferences. Funding and registration The trial is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center KCE # COV201004 Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT04558476. Registered 14 September 2020—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04558476

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed an enormous burden on health care systems around the world. In the past, the administration of convalescent plasma of patients having recovered from SARS and severe influenza to patients actively having the disease showed promising effects on mortality and appeared safe. Whether or not this also holds true for the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus is currently unknown. Methods DAWn-Plasma is a multicentre nation-wide, randomized, open-label, phase II proof-of-concept clinical trial, evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of the addition of convalescent plasma to the standard of care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium. Patients hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 are eligible when they are symptomatic (i.e. clinical or radiological signs) and have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the 72 h before study inclusion through a PCR (nasal/nasopharyngeal swab or bronchoalveolar lavage) or a chest-CT scan showing features compatible with COVID-19 in the absence of an alternative diagnosis. Patients are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either standard of care and convalescent plasma (active treatment group) or standard of care only. The active treatment group receives 2 units of 200 to 250 mL of convalescent plasma within 12 h after randomization, with a second administration of 2 units 24 to 36 h after ending the first administration. The trial aims to include 483 patients and will recruit from 25 centres across Belgium. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients that require mechanical ventilation or have died at day 15. The main secondary endpoints are clinical status on day 15 and day 30 after randomization, as defined by the WHO Progression 10-point ordinal scale, and safety of the administration of convalescent plasma. Discussion This trial will either provide support or discourage the use of convalescent plasma as an early intervention for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04429854 . Registered on 12 June 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

RESUMO Objetivo: Relatar os modelos atualmente disponíveis de predição para o desenvolvimento de lesão renal aguda em unidades de terapia para adultos heterogêneas. Métodos: Foi realizada revisão sistemática dos modelos de predição de lesão renal aguda em unidades de terapia intensiva para pacientes adultos. Fizemos busca na base PubMed® quanto a publicações que relatassem desenvolvimento de um novo modelo de predição, validação de um modelo estabelecido, ou impacto de um modelo de predição existente para diagnóstico precoce de lesão renal aguda em unidades de terapia intensiva. Resultados: Triamos 583 artigos potencialmente relevantes. Dentre os 32 artigos que restaram após a primeira seleção, apenas 5 cumpriram os critérios para inclusão. As adaptações não padronizadas feitas para definir o valor inicial de creatinina sérica, quando o valor desse exame antes da admissão estava faltando, levaram a definições heterogêneas do resultado. Preditores comumente incluídos foram sepse, idade e nível de creatinina sérica. Os modelos finais incluíram entre 5 e 19 fatores de risco. As áreas sob a curva Característica de Operação do Receptor para predição do desenvolvimento de lesão renal aguda nas coortes de validação interna variaram entre 0,78 e 0,88. Apenas dois estudos tiveram validação externa. Conclusão: Os modelos de predição clínica de lesão renal aguda podem ajudar na aplicação em tempo apropriado de intervenções preventivas para os pacientes adequados. Contudo, poucos modelos foram externamente validados para as populações da unidade de terapia intensiva. Além disto, definições heterogêneas para lesão renal aguda e critérios de avaliação, e a falta de análise do impacto comprometem uma comparação abrangente dos modelos existentes. São necessárias novas pesquisas para validar os modelos estabelecidos e analisar seu impacto clínico, antes que estes possam ser aplicados na prática clínica.

Abstract Background The Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) demonstrates good psychometric characteristics in research settings. However, evidence about these characteristics in pragmatic ICU settings is inconsistent. This study evaluated psychometric properties and user-friendliness of the ICDSC when administered by ICU nurses in daily practice. Methods This prospective study included 77 patients from a surgical intensive care unit. To examine the psychometric characteristics, the scores on the ICDSC (performed by bedside nurses) were compared with the scores on the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (performed by researchers as gold standard). The user-friendliness was evaluated by 34 ICU nurses with a 20-item questionnaire. Results The ICDSC had an area under the curve of 0.843. It showed a good diagnostic accuracy with a sensitivity of 81.0%, a specificity of 87.7%, and a 53.1% positive and 96.4% negative predictive value. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all ICDSC scores was high (0.839). Overall, ICU nurses experienced the ICDSC as easy-to-use. The scale was usable in most surgical ICU patients. Yet, some nurses (11.8%) had problems to score the items ‘inappropriate speech’ and ‘symptom fluctuation’ in intubated patients. Conclusions The ICDSC is a valid and user-friendly tool for delirium screening in daily ICU nursing practice. Yet, some problems were reported in intubated patients. Therefore, validation studies with specific focus on intubated patients are needed.

Background Cerebrovascular autoregulation (CA) regulates cerebral vascular tone to maintain near‐constant cerebral blood flow during fluctuations in cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Preclinical and clinical research has challenged the classic triphasic pressure‐flow relationship, leaving the normal pressure‐flow relationship unclear. Methods and Results We used in vivo imaging of the hemodynamic response in pial arterioles to study CA in a porcine closed cranial window model during nonpharmacological blood pressure manipulation. Red blood cell flux was determined in 52 pial arterioles during 10 hypotension and 10 hypertension experiments to describe the pressure‐flow relationship. We found a quadriphasic pressure‐flow relationship with 4 distinct physiological phases. Smaller arterioles demonstrated greater vasodilation during low CPP when compared with large arterioles (P0.9). The upper limit of CA was defined by 2 breakpoints. Increases in CPP lead to a point of maximal vasoconstriction of the smallest pial arterioles (upper limit of autoregulation [ULA] 1). Beyond ULA1, only larger arterioles maintain a limited additional vasoconstrictive capacity, extending the buffer for high CPP. Beyond ULA2, vasoconstrictive capacity is exhausted, and all pial arterioles passively dilate. There was substantial intersubject variability, with ranges of 29.2, 47.3, and 50.9 mm Hg for the lower limit, ULA1, and ULA2, respectively. Conclusions We provide new insights into the quadriphasic physiology of CA, differentiating between truly active CA and an extended capacity to buffer increased CPP with progressive failure of CA. In this experimental model, the limits of CA widely varied between subjects.

Introduction Mechanical ventilatory is a crucial element of acute brain injured patients’ management. The ventilatory goals to ensure lung protection during acute respiratory failure may not be adequate in case of concomitant brain injury. Therefore, there are limited data from which physicians can draw conclusions regarding optimal ventilator management in this setting.Methods and analysis This is an international multicentre prospective observational cohort study. The aim of the ‘multicentre observational study on practice of ventilation in brain injured patients’—the VENTIBRAIN study—is to describe the current practice of ventilator settings and mechanical ventilation in acute brain injured patients. Secondary objectives include the description of ventilator settings among different countries, and their association with outcomes. Inclusion criteria will be adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury or cerebrovascular diseases (intracranial haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, ischaemic stroke), requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation and admission to the ICU. Exclusion criteria will be the following: patients aged

Abstract Background Early diagnosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major challenge in the intensive care unit (ICU). The AKIpredictor is a set of machine-learning-based prediction models for AKI using routinely collected patient information, and accessible online. In order to evaluate its clinical value, the AKIpredictor was compared to physicians’ predictions. Methods Prospective observational study in five ICUs of a tertiary academic center. Critically ill adults without end-stage renal disease or AKI upon admission were considered for enrollment. Using structured questionnaires, physicians were asked upon admission, on the first morning, and after 24 h to predict the development of AKI stages 2 or 3 (AKI-23) during the first week of ICU stay. Discrimination, calibration, and net benefit of physicians’ predictions were compared against the ones by the AKIpredictor. Results Two hundred fifty-two patients were included, 30 (12%) developed AKI-23. In the cohort of patients with predictions by physicians and AKIpredictor, the performance of physicians and AKIpredictor were respectively upon ICU admission, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.80 [0.69–0.92] versus 0.75 [0.62–0.88] (n = 120, P = 0.25) with net benefit in ranges 0–26% versus 0–74%; on the first morning, AUROC 0.94 [0.89–0.98] versus 0.89 [0.82–0.97] (n = 187, P = 0.27) with main net benefit in ranges 0–10% versus 0–48%; after 24 h, AUROC 0.95 [0.89–1.00] versus 0.89 [0.79–0.99] (n = 89, P = 0.09) with main net benefit in ranges 0–67% versus 0–50%. Conclusions The machine-learning-based AKIpredictor achieved similar discriminative performance as physicians for prediction of AKI-23, and higher net benefit overall, because physicians overestimated the risk of AKI. This suggests an added value of the systematic risk stratification by the AKIpredictor to physicians’ predictions, in particular to select high-risk patients or reduce false positives in studies evaluating new and potentially harmful therapies. Due to the low event rate, future studies are needed to validate these findings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03574896 registration date: July 2nd, 2018

Background: The antifungal drug itraconazole exerts in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 in Vero and human Caco-2 cells. Preclinical and clinical studies are required to investigate if itraconazole is effective for the treatment and/or prevention of COVID-19. Methods: Due to the initial absence of preclinical models, the effect of itraconazole was explored in a clinical, proof-of-concept, open-label, single-center study, in which hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care with or without itraconazole. Primary outcome was the cumulative score of the clinical status until day 15 based on the 7-point ordinal scale of the World Health Organization. In parallel, itraconazole was evaluated in a newly established hamster model of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, as soon as the model was validated. Findings: In the hamster acute infection model, itraconazole did not reduce viral load in lungs, stools or ileum, despite adequate plasma and lung drug concentrations. In the transmission model, itraconazole failed to prevent viral transmission. The clinical trial was prematurely discontinued after evaluation of the preclinical studies and because an interim analysis showed no signal for a more favorable outcome with itraconazole: mean cumulative score of the clinical status 49 vs 47, ratio of geometric means 1.01 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.19) for itraconazole vs standard of care. Interpretation: Despite in vitro activity, itraconazole was not effective in a preclinical COVID-19 hamster model. This prompted the premature termination of the proof-of-concept clinical study.Funding: KU Leuven, Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO), Horizon 2020, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Background: Several studies have investigated the predictors of in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients who need to be admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). However, no data on the role of organizational issues on patients’ outcome are available in this setting. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the role of surge capacity organisation on the outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs in Belgium. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in Belgian ICU COVID-19 patients via the national surveillance database. Non-survivors at hospital discharge were compared to survivors using multivariable mixed effects logistic regression analysis. Specific analyses including only patients with invasive ventilation were performed. To assess surge capacity, data were merged with administrative information on the type of hospital, the baseline number of recognized ICU beds, the number of supplementary beds specifically created for COVID-19 ICU care and the “ICU overflow” (i.e. a time-varying ratio between the number of occupied ICU beds by confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients divided by the number of recognized ICU beds reserved for COVID-19 patients; ICU overflow was present when this ratio is ≥ 1.0). Findings: Over a total of 13,612 hospitalised COVID-19 patients with admission and discharge forms registered in the surveillance period (March, 1 to August, 9 2020), 1903 (14.0%) required ICU admission, of whom 1747 had available outcome data. Non-survivors (n = 632, 36.1%) were older and had more frequently various comorbid diseases than survivors. In the multivariable analysis, ICU overflow, together with older age, presence of comorbidities, shorter delay between symptom onset and hospital admission, absence of hydroxychloroquine therapy and use of invasive mechanical ventilation and of ECMO, was independently associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. Similar results were found in in in the subgroup of invasively ventilated patients. In addition, the proportion of supplementary beds specifically created for COVID-19 ICU care to the previously existing total number of ICU beds was associated with increased in-hospital mortality among invasively ventilated patients. The model also indicated a significant between-hospital difference in in-hospital mortality, not explained by the available patients and hospital characteristics. Interpretation: Surge capacity organisation as reflected by ICU overflow or the creation of COVID-19 specific supplementary ICU beds were found to negatively impact ICU patient outcomes. Funding: No funding source was available for this study.

Magnitude of intracranial pressure (ICP) elevations and their duration have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injuries (TBI), however published thresholds for injury vary and uncertainty about these levels has received relatively little attention. In this study, we have analyzed high-resolution ICP monitoring data in 227 adult patients in the CENTER-TBI dataset. Our aim was to identify thresholds of ICP intensity and duration associated with worse outcome, and to evaluate the uncertainty in any such thresholds. We present ICP intensity and duration plots to visualize the relationship between ICP events and outcome. We also introduced a novel bootstrap technique to evaluate uncertainty of the equipoise line. We found that an intensity threshold of 18 ± 4 mmHg (2 standard deviations) was associated with worse outcomes in this cohort. In contrast, the uncertainty in what duration is associated with harm was larger, and safe durations were found to be population dependent. The pressure and time dose (PTD) was also calculated as area under the curve above thresholds of ICP. A relationship between PTD and mortality could be established, as well as for unfavourable outcome. This relationship remained valid for mortality but not unfavourable outcome after adjusting for IMPACT core variables and maximum therapy intensity level. Importantly, during periods of impaired autoregulation (defined as pressure reactivity index (PRx)>0.3) ICP events were associated with worse outcomes for nearly all durations and ICP levels in this cohort and there was a stronger relationship between outcome and PTD. Whilst caution should be exercised in ascribing causation in observational analyses, these results suggest intracranial hypertension is poorly tolerated in the presence of impaired autoregulation. ICP level guidelines may need to be revised in the future taking into account cerebrovascular autoregulation status considered jointly with ICP levels.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.