Analgosedation of adult patients with elevated intracranial pressure : Survey of current clinical practice in Austria

Neuroprotective and neuroregenerative drugs after severe traumatic brain injury : A narrative review from a clinical perspective

Traumatic brain injuries cause enormous individual and socioeconomic burdens. Survivors frequently struggle with motor handicaps as well as impaired cognition and emotion. In addition to the primary mechanical brain damage, complex secondary mechanisms are the main drivers of functional impairment. Many of these pathophysiological mechanisms are now well known: excitotoxic amino acids, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier, neuroinflammation with subsequent damage to cell organelles and membranes, cerebral edema, and apoptotic processes triggering neuronal death; however, paracrine resilience factors may counteract these processes. Specific neuroprotective and neuroregenerative intensive care therapies are few. This review highlights medical approaches aimed at mitigating secondary damage and promoting neurotrophic processes in severe traumatic brain injury. Some pharmacologic attempts that appeared very promising in experimental settings have had disappointing clinical results (progesterone, cyclosporine A, ronopterin, erythropoietin, dexanabinol). Thus, the search for drugs that can effectively limit ongoing posttraumatic neurological damage is ongoing. Some medications appear to be beneficial: N‑methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDA) antagonists (esketamine, amantadine, Mg++) reduce excitotoxicity and statins and cerebrolysin are known to counteract neuroinflammation. By supporting the impaired mitochondrial energy supply, oxidative processes are inhibited and neuroregenerative processes, such as neurogenesis, angiogenesis and synaptogenesis are promoted by citicoline and cerebrolysin. First clinical evidence shows an improvement in cognitive and thymopsychic outcomes, underlined by own clinical experience combining different therapeutic approaches. Accordingly, adjuvant treatment with neuroprotective substances appears to be a promising option, although more randomized prospective studies are still needed.

Personalizing Prediction of High Opioid Use in the Neurointensive Care Unit: Development and Validation of a Stratified Risk Model for Acute Brain Injury Due to Stroke or Traumatic Brain Injury

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to develop and validate a stratified risk model for predicting high opioid use in patients with acute brain injury due to stroke or traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to a neurocritical care intensive care unit. Methods: We examined the factors associated with the use of high-opioids (≥75th quartile, ≥17.5 oral morphine equivalent/ICU day) in a retrospective cohort study including patients with acute ischemic stroke, spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, and TBI. We then developed, trained, and validated a risk model to predict high-dose opioids. Results: Among 2490 patients aged 45-64 years (β = -0.25), aged 65-80 years (β = -0.97), and aged ≥80 years (β = -1.17), a history of anxiety/depression (β = 0.57), a history of illicit drug use (β = 0.79), admission diagnosis (β = 1.21), lowest Glasgow Coma Scale Score (GCSL) [GCSL 3-8 (β = -0.90], {GCS L 9-12 ((β = -0.34)], mechanical ventilation (β = 1.21), intracranial pressure monitoring (β = 0.69), craniotomy/craniectomy (β = 0.6), and paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (β = 1.12) were found to be significant predictors of high-dose opioid use. When validated, the model demonstrated an area under the curve ranging from 0.72 to 0.82, accuracy ranging from 0.68 to 0.91, precision ranging from 0.71 to 0.94, recall ranging from 0.75 to 1, and F1 ranging from 0.74 to 0.95. Conclusions: A personalized stratified risk model may allow clinicians to predict the risk of high opioid use in patients with acute brain injury due to stroke or TBI. Findings need validation in multi-center cohorts.

Improving Neurotrauma by Depolarization Inhibition With Combination Therapy: A Phase 2 Randomized Feasibility Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Spreading depolarizations (SDs) are a pathological mechanism that mediates lesion development in cerebral gray matter. They occur in ∼60% of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), often in recurring and progressive patterns from days 0 to 10 after injury, and are associated with worse outcomes. However, there are no protocols or trials suggesting how SD monitoring might be incorporated into clinical management. The objective of this protocol is to determine the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a treatment protocol for intensive care of patients with severe TBI that is guided by electrocorticographic monitoring of SDs.

METHODS

Patients who undergo surgery for severe TBI with placement of a subdural electrode strip will be eligible for enrollment. Those who exhibit SDs on electrocorticography during intensive care will be randomized 1:1 to either (1) standard care that is blinded to the further course of SDs or (2) a tiered intervention protocol based on efficacy to suppress further SDs. Interventions aim to block the triggering and propagation of SDs and include adjusted targets for management of blood pressure, CO 2 , temperature, and glucose, as well as ketamine pharmacotherapy up to 4 mg/kg/ hour. Interventions will be escalated and de-escalated depending on the course of SD pathology.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

We expect to demonstrate that electrocorticographic monitoring of SDs can be used as a real- time diagnostic in intensive care that leads to meaningful changes in patient management and a reduction in secondary injury, as compared with standard care, without increasing medical complications or adverse events.

DISCUSSION

This trial holds potential for personalization of intensive care management by tailoring therapies based on monitoring and confirmation of the targeted neuronal mechanism of SD. Results are expected to validate the concept of this approach, inform refinement of the treatment protocol, and lead to larger-scale trials.

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate Combined with Esketamine for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Purpose

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate combined with esketamine for outpatient colonoscopy.

Patients and methods

A total of 150 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. A MOAA/S score ≤3 was maintained. The primary outcome was the rate of successful colonoscopy completion. Time indicators, hemodynamic parameters, the consumption of lidocaine, esketamine, propofol and remimazolam besylate, MOAA/S scores and bispectral index (BIS) values, the lowest SpO2, body movement, the use of rescue medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, mini-mental state examination (MMSE), fatigue level and adverse events were recorded.

Results

Procedure completion was equivalent between groups (P > 0.05). Both induction and awakening times were significantly shorter in the P group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in colonoscopy time and discharge time (P > 0.05). The lowest SpO2 was significantly lower in the P group, while the level of fatigue was higher (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the R group (P < 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the P group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure between groups except at T5 and T6 (P > 0.05). Both HR and RR were significantly lower in the P group from T3 to T5 (P < 0.05). BIS values were significantly lower in the P group from T3 to T5, while MOAA/S was significantly lower in the P group at T3 and T4 (P < 0.05). Pain on injection was significantly higher in the P group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam besylate has a similar efficacy to propofol when combined with subanesthetic doses of esketamine during outpatient colonoscopy. Remimazolam besylate combined with esketamine resulted in less injection pain and more stable hemodynamics, although it prolonged induction and awakening time.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.

RESULTS

Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.

METHODS

We sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ≥24 h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24 h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.

RESULTS

We enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p = 0.003 and < 0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

Escalate and De-Escalate Therapies for Intracranial Pressure Control in Traumatic Brain Injury

Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is frequently associated with an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP), followed by cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) reduction. Invasive monitoring of ICP is recommended to guide a step-by-step “staircase approach” which aims to normalize ICP values and reduce the risks of secondary damage. However, if such monitoring is not available clinical examination and radiological criteria should be used. A major concern is how to taper the therapies employed for ICP control. The aim of this manuscript is to review the criteria for escalating and withdrawing therapies in TBI patients. Each step of the staircase approach carries a risk of adverse effects related to the duration of treatment. Tapering of barbiturates should start once ICP control has been achieved for at least 24 h, although a period of 2–12 days is often required. Administration of hyperosmolar fluids should be avoided if ICP is normal. Sedation should be reduced after at least 24 h of controlled ICP to allow neurological examination. Removal of invasive ICP monitoring is suggested after 72 h of normal ICP. For patients who have undergone surgical decompression, cranioplasty represents the final step, and an earlier cranioplasty (15–90 days after decompression) seems to reduce the rate of infection, seizures, and hydrocephalus.

S(+)-ketamine : Current trends in emergency and intensive care medicine

S(+)-ketamine, the pure dextrorotatory enantiomer of ketamine has been available for clinical use in analgesia and anesthesia for more than 25 years. The main effects are mediated by non-competitive inhibition of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor but S(+)-ketamine also interacts with opioid receptors, monoamine receptors, adenosine receptors and other purinergic receptors. Effects on α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptors, metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR) and L‑type calcium chanels have also been described. S(+)-ketamine stimulates the sympathetic nerve system, making it an ideal drug for analgosedation or induction of anesthesia in instable patients. In addition, the neuroprotective properties, bronchodilatory, antihyperalgesic or antiepileptic effects provide interesting therapeutic options. In this article we discuss the numerous effects of S(+)-ketamine under pharmacological and clinical aspects especially for typical indications in emergency medicine as well as intensive care.