ReviewElectrolyte & blood pressure : E & BP2024
Efficacy and Renal Safety of Protocol-based 11.7% Hypertonic Saline Infusion Compared with 20% Mannitol in Patients with Elevated Intracranial Pressure: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Review in Electrolyte & blood pressure : E & BP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is a potentially life-threatening condition requiring prompt intervention. While both mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS) are commonly used hyperosmotic agents for treating elevated ICP, there is insufficient evidence comparing their renal safety profiles and overall effectiveness. This study protocol outlines a pragmatic randomized trial to compare protocol-based 11.7% HTS with 20% mannitol in patients with elevated ICP, focusing particularly on renal outcomes and treatment efficacy. Methods: This single-center, pragmatic randomized trial will enroll 116 intensive care unit patients with elevated ICP. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either 11.7% HTS or 20% mannitol following a schedule-based randomization approach, with HTS administration during odd-numbered months and mannitol during even-numbered months. The study will regularly monitor serum electrolytes, osmolarity, and renal function, with brain CT evaluations conducted on days 3 and 7. Comprehensive clinical assessments, including neurological evaluations and laboratory tests, will be performed at specified intervals throughout the study period. Measured Outcomes: Primary outcomes include the incidence of acute kidney injury within 7 days according to KDIGO guidelines, requirement for mechanical ventilation, development of pulmonary edema, and significant fluid retention. Secondary outcomes encompass ICU and hospital length of stay, 30- and 90-day mortality rates, and neurological outcomes assessed by Glasgow Coma Scale scores at days 7 and 30. The study hypothesizes that protocol-based HTS administration will demonstrate a lower incidence of acute kidney injury and related complications while maintaining comparable efficacy in managing elevated ICP. Conclusion: This study aims to provide definitive evidence regarding the relative efficacy and safety profiles of HTS compared to mannitol in managing elevated ICP. The findings will help establish clearer clinical guidelines for selecting appropriate hyperosmotic agents, potentially improving patient care outcomes and reducing treatment-related complications. This research will address a significant gap in current clinical knowledge and practice by focusing on treatment efficacy and renal safety considerations in patients with elevated ICP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.