Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748062›Full record

ReviewWiener klinische Wochenschrift2024

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

Ivan Grgac, Guenther Herzer, Wolfgang G Voelckel, Julio J Secades, Helmut Trimmel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

5 authors.

Ivan GrgacDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Medicine, State Hospital of Wiener Neustadt, Corvinusring 3-5, 2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Guenther HerzerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Medicine, State Hospital of Wiener Neustadt, Corvinusring 3-5, 2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Wolfgang G VoelckelDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, AUVA Trauma Centre Salzburg, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Julio J SecadesMedical Department, Ferrer, 08029, Barcelona, Spain.
Helmut TrimmelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Medicine, State Hospital of Wiener Neustadt, Corvinusring 3-5, 2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria. Helmut.Trimmel@wienerneustadt.lknoe.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7327-0699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticNeuroprotective AgentsHumansNerve RegenerationNeuroprotective AgentsExcitotoxicityOxidative stressPreservation of neuronal integrityReparative mechanisms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.