Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38526923›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2024

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on Hemodynamic Management.

Brian K Kwon, Lindsay A Tetreault, Allan R Martin, Paul M Arnold, Rex A W Marco, Virginia F J Newcombe, Carl M Zipser, Stephen L McKenna, Radha Korupolu, Chris J Neal and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
34.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Acute management of spinal fractures: What you need to know.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

21 authors at 20 institutions in 5 countries.

Brian K KwonDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lindsay A TetreaultDepartment of Neurology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Allan R MartinDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Paul M ArnoldDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, Urbana, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4622-7695
Rex A W MarcoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3393-1672
Virginia F J NewcombeUniversity Division of Anaesthesia and PACE, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Carl M ZipserSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stephen L McKennaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2030-8988
Radha KorupoluDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Chris J NealDepartment of Surgery, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5072-6454
Rajiv SaigalDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nina E GlassDepartment of Surgery, Rutgers, New Jersey Medical School, University Hospital, Newark, NJ.ORCID 0000-0002-6821-4289
Sam DouglasPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mario GanauNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Vafa Rahimi-MovagharSina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
James S HarropDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Bizhan AarabiDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jefferson R WilsonDivision of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5965-0305
Nathan EvaniewMcCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1974-5224
Andrea C SkellyAggregate Analytics, Inc., Fircrest, WA, USA.
Michael G FehlingsDivision of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5722-6364
Methodist Hospital · USNeurological Surgery · USNYU Langone Health · USPraxis Spinal Cord Institute · CARutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USStanford University · USTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USThomas Jefferson University · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USUniversitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designClinical practice guideline development following the GRADE process.

objectivesHemodynamic management is one of the only available treatment options that likely improves neurologic outcomes in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Augmenting mean arterial pressure (MAP) aims to improve blood perfusion and oxygen delivery to the injured spinal cord in order to minimize secondary ischemic damage to neural tissue. The objective of this guideline was to update the 2013 AANS/CNS recommendations on the hemodynamic management of patients with acute traumatic SCI, acknowledging that much has been published in this area since its publication. Specifically, we sought to make recommendations on 1. The range of mean arterial pressure (MAP) to be maintained by identifying an upper and lower MAP limit; 2. The duration of such MAP augmentation; and 3. The choice of vasopressor. Additionally, we sought to make a recommendation on spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) targets.

methodsA multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included health care professionals from a wide range of clinical specialities, patient advocates, and individuals living with SCI. The GDG reviewed the 2013 AANS/CNS guidelines and voted on whether each recommendation should be endorsed or updated. A systematic review of the literature, following PRISMA standards and registered in PROSPERO, was conducted to inform the guideline development process and address the following key questions: (i) what are the effects of goal-directed interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? and (ii) what are the effects of particular monitoring techniques, perfusion ranges, pharmacological agents, and durations of treatment on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? The GDG combined the information from this systematic review with their clinical expertise in order to develop recommendations on a MAP target range (specifically an upper and lower limit to target), the optimal duration for MAP augmentation, and the use of vasopressors or inotropes. Using methods outlined by the GRADE working group, recommendations were formulated that considered the balance of benefits and harms, financial impact, acceptability, feasibility and patient preferences.

resultsThe GDG suggested that MAP should be augmented to at least 75-80 mmHg as the "lower limit," but not actively augmented beyond an "upper limit" of 90-95 mmHg in order to optimize spinal cord perfusion in acute traumatic SCI. The quality of the evidence around the "target MAP" was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is weak. For duration of hemodynamic management, the GDG "suggested" that MAP be augmented for a duration of 3-7 days. Again, the quality of the evidence around the duration of MAP support was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is also weak. The GDG felt that a recommendation on the choice of vasopressor or the use of SCPP targets was not warranted, given the dearth of available evidence.

conclusionWe provide new recommendations for blood pressure management after acute SCI that acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence on the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery. It was felt that the low quality of existing evidence and uncertainty around the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery justified a greater range of MAP to target, and for a broader range of days post-injury than recommended in previous guidelines. While important knowledge gaps still remain regarding hemodynamic management, these recommendations represent current perspectives on the role of MAP augmentation for acute SCI.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelineGRADEhemodynamic managementmean arterial pressurespinal cord injuryspinal cord perfusionvasopressors

Identifiers

PMID38526923
PMCPMC10964888
OpenAlexW4393143536

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.