Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37712809›Full record

ArticleCritical care science

Neurocritical care management supported by multimodal brain monitoring after acute brain injury.

Elisabete Monteiro, António Ferreira, Edite Raquel Mendes, Sofia Rocha E Silva, Isabel Maia, Cláudia Camila Dias, Marek Czosnyka, José Artur Paiva, Celeste Dias

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine and Indian Association of Palliative Care Expert Consensus and Position Statements for End-of-life and Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elisabete MonteiroDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7010-4193
António FerreiraDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9090-8068
Edite Raquel MendesDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.
Sofia Rocha E SilvaDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.
Isabel MaiaDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.
Cláudia Camila DiasKnowledge Management Unit, Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto - Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9356-3272
Marek CzosnykaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge - Cambrigde, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2446-8006
José Artur PaivaDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4323-0220
Celeste DiasDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João - Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0340-9808

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury.

methodsPatients 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.

resultsAmong 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).

conclusionMultimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesBrain Injuries, TraumaticBrainGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansIntensive Care Units

Identifiers

PMID37712809
PMCPMC10406405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.