Literature DB >> 17336527

Clinical outcome of severe head injury in different protocol-driven therapies.

Sheng-Jean Huang1, Wei-Chen Hong, Yin-Yi Han, Yuan-Sen Chen, Chung-Shi Wen, Yi-Shin Tsan, Yong-Kwang Tu.   

Abstract

In the past 5 years cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) management has become mainstream in the treatment of severe head injuries. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons guidelines (2000) suggest that CPP should be maintained at least 70 mmHg; however, there is still debate about optimal CPP level. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of three widely used therapies: intracranial pressure (ICP)-targeted therapy, CPP-targeted therapy with CPP > 70 mmHg, and modified CPP-targeted therapy with CPP > 60 mmHg. The clinical procedures, complications, and patient outcomes are compared. Data including patient age, sex, initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), ICP, CPP, fluid status, amount of mannitol and vasopressor used, daily intake and output, complications, and clinical results were collected from 213 patients with severe head injuries over a 12-year period. Patients were categorized into three groups (ICP, CPP, modified CPP [mCPP]) according to treatment protocol used. Retrospective data collection was by chart review. The mortality rate was 28.6%, 14.3%, and 13.5% in groups ICP, CPP, and mCPP, respectively. Highest intake/output ratio, amount of vasopressor used, and pulmonary complication rates were seen in group CPP patients. Group mCPP patients showed the best clinical outcome and lowest complication rate. Though CPP-targeted therapy is the most recommended therapeutic protocol, our data showed that the outcome is as good in the mCPP-targeted group with CPP > 60 mmHg as in the CPP-targeted group, but complications are fewer in the mCPP group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17336527     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2005.12.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  3 in total

Review 1.  [Increased intracranial pressure and brain edema].

Authors:  W Dietrich; F Erbguth
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  [Increased intracranial pressure and brain edema].

Authors:  W Dietrich; F Erbguth
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 3.  Impact of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring on Prognosis of Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A PRISMA Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jinsong Han; Shumao Yang; Chunyu Zhang; Ming Zhao; Anmin Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.889

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.