Jed A Hartings1. 1. aDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Medicine bMayfield Clinic, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spreading depolarizations are unique in being discrete pathologic entities that are well characterized experimentally and also occur commonly in patients with substantial acute brain injury. Here, we review essential concepts in depolarization monitoring, highlighting its clinical significance, interpretation, and future potential. RECENT FINDINGS: Cortical lesion development in diverse animal models is mediated by tissue waves of mass spreading depolarization that cause the toxic loss of ion homeostasis and limit energy substrate supply through associated vasoconstriction. The signatures of such deterioration are observed in electrocorticographic recordings from perilesional cortex of patients with acute stroke or brain trauma. Experimental work suggests that depolarizations are triggered by energy supply-demand mismatch in focal hotspots of the injury penumbra, and depolarizations are usually observed clinically when other monitoring variables are within recommended ranges. These results suggest that depolarizations are a sensitive measure of relative ischemia and ongoing secondary injury, and may serve as a clinical guide for personalized, mechanistically targeted therapy. Both existing and future candidate therapies offer hope to limit depolarization recurrence. SUMMARY: Electrocorticographic monitoring of spreading depolarizations in patients with acute brain injury provides a sensitive measure of relative energy shortage in focal, vulnerable brains regions and indicates ongoing secondary damage. Depolarization monitoring holds potential for targeted clinical trial design and implementation of precision medicine approaches to acute brain injury therapy.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spreading depolarizations are unique in being discrete pathologic entities that are well characterized experimentally and also occur commonly in patients with substantial acute brain injury. Here, we review essential concepts in depolarization monitoring, highlighting its clinical significance, interpretation, and future potential. RECENT FINDINGS: Cortical lesion development in diverse animal models is mediated by tissue waves of mass spreading depolarization that cause the toxic loss of ion homeostasis and limit energy substrate supply through associated vasoconstriction. The signatures of such deterioration are observed in electrocorticographic recordings from perilesional cortex of patients with acute stroke or brain trauma. Experimental work suggests that depolarizations are triggered by energy supply-demand mismatch in focal hotspots of the injury penumbra, and depolarizations are usually observed clinically when other monitoring variables are within recommended ranges. These results suggest that depolarizations are a sensitive measure of relative ischemia and ongoing secondary injury, and may serve as a clinical guide for personalized, mechanistically targeted therapy. Both existing and future candidate therapies offer hope to limit depolarization recurrence. SUMMARY: Electrocorticographic monitoring of spreading depolarizations in patients with acute brain injury provides a sensitive measure of relative energy shortage in focal, vulnerable brains regions and indicates ongoing secondary damage. Depolarization monitoring holds potential for targeted clinical trial design and implementation of precision medicine approaches to acute brain injury therapy.
Authors: Brandon Foreman; Laura B Ngwenya; Erica Stoddard; Jason M Hinzman; Norberto Andaluz; Jed A Hartings Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Ayham Alkhachroum; Brian Appavu; Benjamin Rohaut; Jan Claassen; Satoshi Egawa; Brandon Foreman; Nicolas Gaspard; Emily J Gilmore; Lawrence J Hirsch; Pedro Kurtz; Virginie Lambrecq; Julie Kromm; Paul Vespa; Sahar F Zafar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Samuel W Cramer; Isabela Peña Pino; Anant Naik; Danielle Carlson; Michael C Park; David P Darrow Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Brandon Foreman; Hyunjo Lee; David O Okonkwo; Anthony J Strong; Clemens Pahl; Lori A Shutter; Jens P Dreier; Laura B Ngwenya; Jed A Hartings Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: Punam A Sawant-Pokam; Tyler J Vail; Cameron S Metcalf; Jamie L Maguire; Thomas O McKean; Nick O McKean; K C Brennan Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jed A Hartings; Jonathan York; Christopher P Carroll; Jason M Hinzman; Eric Mahoney; Bryan Krueger; Maren K L Winkler; Sebastian Major; Viktor Horst; Paul Jahnke; Johannes Woitzik; Vasilis Kola; Yifeng Du; Matthew Hagen; Jianxiong Jiang; Jens P Dreier Journal: Brain Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Lei Liu; Kathryn N Kearns; Ilyas Eli; Khadijeh A Sharifi; Sauson Soldozy; Elizabeth W Carlson; Kyle W Scott; M Filip Sluzewski; Scott T Acton; Kenneth A Stauderman; M Yashar S Kalani; Min Park; Petr Tvrdik Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Isabelle C Samper; Sally A N Gowers; Michelle L Rogers; De-Shaine R K Murray; Sharon L Jewell; Clemens Pahl; Anthony J Strong; Martyn G Boutelle Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 7.517