BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to obtain basic knowledge about the current local conditions and neurointensive care of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the new multi-centre collaborative BrainIT group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey comprised a background part on local policies (Part A), and a case study section (Part B). The information was gathered by questionnaire followed by telephone interviews. Twenty-three BrainIT centres participated in the survey and answers from two respondents were available from 18 of the sites. RESULTS: The average proportion of agreement between duplicate respondents was 0.778 (range 0.415-1.00). All BrainIT centres monitored ICP. The treatment protocols seem to have a pattern concerning escalation of treatment of intracranial hypertension: 1/ evacuation of mass lesions and head elevation; 2/ increased sedation and mannitol; 3/ hyperventilation; 4/ ventricular drainage; 5/ craniectomy and barbituates. CONCLUSIONS: There seemed to be an agreement on neurointensive care policies within the BrainIT group. The suggested order of treatment was generally in accordance with published guidelines although the suggested order and combinations of different treatments varied. Variation of treatment within the range of prescribed standards provides optimal conditions for an interesting future analysis of treatment and monitoring data in reality using the BrainIT database.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to obtain basic knowledge about the current local conditions and neurointensive care of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the new multi-centre collaborative BrainIT group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey comprised a background part on local policies (Part A), and a case study section (Part B). The information was gathered by questionnaire followed by telephone interviews. Twenty-three BrainIT centres participated in the survey and answers from two respondents were available from 18 of the sites. RESULTS: The average proportion of agreement between duplicate respondents was 0.778 (range 0.415-1.00). All BrainIT centres monitored ICP. The treatment protocols seem to have a pattern concerning escalation of treatment of intracranial hypertension: 1/ evacuation of mass lesions and head elevation; 2/ increased sedation and mannitol; 3/ hyperventilation; 4/ ventricular drainage; 5/ craniectomy and barbituates. CONCLUSIONS: There seemed to be an agreement on neurointensive care policies within the BrainIT group. The suggested order of treatment was generally in accordance with published guidelines although the suggested order and combinations of different treatments varied. Variation of treatment within the range of prescribed standards provides optimal conditions for an interesting future analysis of treatment and monitoring data in reality using the BrainIT database.
Authors: Fabian Güiza; Bart Depreitere; Ian Piper; Giuseppe Citerio; Iain Chambers; Patricia A Jones; Tsz-Yan Milly Lo; Per Enblad; Pelle Nillson; Bart Feyen; Philippe Jorens; Andrew Maas; Martin U Schuhmann; Rob Donald; Laura Moss; Greet Van den Berghe; Geert Meyfroidt Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Peter J D Andrews; Louise H Sinclair; Bridget Harris; Melissa J Baldwin; Claire G Battison; Jonathan K J Rhodes; Gordon Murray; Daniel De Backer Journal: Trials Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 2.279