Guilherme B F Porto1, Alejandro M Spiotta2, Julio A Chalela2, Ryan T Kellogg2, Edward C Jauch3,4. 1. College of Medicine, MUSC, Charleston, SC, USA. 2. Department of Neurosciences, MUSC, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. Department of Neurosciences, MUSC, Charleston, SC, USA. jauch@musc.edu. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, CSB 210, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. jauch@musc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with acute brain injuries require strict physiologic control to minimize morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess in-hospital compliance to strict physiologic parameters (BP, HR, ICP, SpO2) in these populations. METHODS: Patients with severe cerebrovascular events were admitted to the neurointensive care unit (NSICU) and were continuously monitored using the BedMasterEX (Excel Medical Electronics Inc, FL) system, which recorded hemodynamic data via an arterial catheter continuously in 5-s intervals. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of healthcare provider shift changes (6-8 a.m./p.m) and of day (6 a.m.-6 p.m.) versus night (6 p.m-6 a.m) shifts in hemodynamic control. RESULTS: Fifty patients admitted to the NSICU, 50 % male, mean age 59.7 ± 13.9 years with subarachnoid hemorrhage (23), ischemic stroke (8), subdural hematoma (4), intracerebral hemorrhage (3), intraventricular hemorrhage (2), and miscellaneous injuries (10) were enrolled. Data represented 2,337 total hours of continuous monitoring. Systolic BPs (SBP) were on average outside of recommended ranges 32.26 ± 30.46 % of the monitoring period. We subdivided adherence to ideal SBP range: optimal (≥99 % of time spent in NSICU within range) was achieved in 12 %, adequate (90 %) in 16 %, suboptimal (80 %) in 20 %, inadequate I (70 %) in 12 %, and inadequate II (<70 %) in 40 % of patients. Comparison of shift change %time and day versus night %time out of parameter yielded no statistically significant differences across SAH patients. CONCLUSION: Hemodynamic management of patients with cerebrovascular injuries, based on targeted thresholds in the NSICU, yielded optimal control of SBP in only 28 % of our patients (within parameters ≥90 % of time).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Patients with acute brain injuries require strict physiologic control to minimize morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess in-hospital compliance to strict physiologic parameters (BP, HR, ICP, SpO2) in these populations. METHODS:Patients with severe cerebrovascular events were admitted to the neurointensive care unit (NSICU) and were continuously monitored using the BedMasterEX (Excel Medical Electronics Inc, FL) system, which recorded hemodynamic data via an arterial catheter continuously in 5-s intervals. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of healthcare provider shift changes (6-8 a.m./p.m) and of day (6 a.m.-6 p.m.) versus night (6 p.m-6 a.m) shifts in hemodynamic control. RESULTS: Fifty patients admitted to the NSICU, 50 % male, mean age 59.7 ± 13.9 years with subarachnoid hemorrhage (23), ischemic stroke (8), subdural hematoma (4), intracerebral hemorrhage (3), intraventricular hemorrhage (2), and miscellaneous injuries (10) were enrolled. Data represented 2,337 total hours of continuous monitoring. Systolic BPs (SBP) were on average outside of recommended ranges 32.26 ± 30.46 % of the monitoring period. We subdivided adherence to ideal SBP range: optimal (≥99 % of time spent in NSICU within range) was achieved in 12 %, adequate (90 %) in 16 %, suboptimal (80 %) in 20 %, inadequate I (70 %) in 12 %, and inadequate II (<70 %) in 40 % of patients. Comparison of shift change %time and day versus night %time out of parameter yielded no statistically significant differences across SAH patients. CONCLUSION: Hemodynamic management of patients with cerebrovascular injuries, based on targeted thresholds in the NSICU, yielded optimal control of SBP in only 28 % of our patients (within parameters ≥90 % of time).
Authors: E Sander Connolly; Alejandro A Rabinstein; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Colin P Derdeyn; Jacques Dion; Randall T Higashida; Brian L Hoh; Catherine J Kirkness; Andrew M Naidech; Christopher S Ogilvy; Aman B Patel; B Gregory Thompson; Paul Vespa Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Thorsten Steiner; Markku Kaste; Markku Katse; Michael Forsting; David Mendelow; Hubert Kwiecinski; Istvan Szikora; Seppo Juvela; Andrzej Marchel; René Chapot; Christophe Cognard; Andreas Unterberg; Werner Hacke Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Harold P Adams; Gregory del Zoppo; Mark J Alberts; Deepak L Bhatt; Lawrence Brass; Anthony Furlan; Robert L Grubb; Randall T Higashida; Edward C Jauch; Chelsea Kidwell; Patrick D Lyden; Lewis B Morgenstern; Adnan I Qureshi; Robert H Rosenwasser; Phillip A Scott; Eelco F M Wijdicks Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-04-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Peter Sandercock; Joanna M Wardlaw; Richard I Lindley; Martin Dennis; Geoff Cohen; Gordon Murray; Karen Innes; Graham Venables; Anna Czlonkowska; Adam Kobayashi; Stefano Ricci; Veronica Murray; Eivind Berge; Karsten Bruins Slot; Graeme J Hankey; Manuel Correia; Andre Peeters; Karl Matz; Phillippe Lyrer; Gord Gubitz; Stephen J Phillips; Antonio Arauz Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Luzius A Steiner; Marek Czosnyka; Stefan K Piechnik; Piotr Smielewski; Doris Chatfield; David K Menon; John D Pickard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 7.598