Jed A Hartings1,2, Norberto Andaluz1,3, M Ross Bullock4, Jason M Hinzman1, Bruce Mathern5, Clemens Pahl6, Ava Puccio7, Lori A Shutter1,8, Anthony J Strong9, Achala Vagal10, J Adam Wilson1, Jens P Dreier11, Laura B Ngwenya1,2, Brandon Foreman1,2, Laura Pahren12, Hester Lingsma13, David O Okonkwo7. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 5. Division of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. 6. Department of Critical Care Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 11. Departments of Neurology, Experimental Neurology, and Neurosurgery and Centre for Stroke Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 12. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 13. Department of Public Health, Centre for Medical Decision Making, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Importance: Advances in treatment of traumatic brain injury are hindered by the inability to monitor pathological mechanisms in individual patients for targeted neuroprotective treatment. Spreading depolarizations, a mechanism of lesion development in animal models, are a novel candidate for clinical monitoring in patients with brain trauma who need surgery. Objective: To test the null hypothesis that spreading depolarizations are not associated with worse neurologic outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted from February 2009 to August 2013 in 5 level 1 trauma centers. Consecutive patients who required neurological surgery for treatment of acute brain trauma and for whom research consent could be obtained were enrolled; participants were excluded because of technical problems in data quality, patient withdrawal, or loss to follow-up. Primary statistical analysis took place from April to December 2018. Evaluators of outcome assessments were blinded to other measures. Interventions: A 6-contact electrode strip was placed on the brain surface during surgery for continuous electrocorticography during intensive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Electrocorticography was scored for depolarizations, following international consensus procedures. Six-month outcomes were assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score. Results: A total of 157 patients were initially enrolled; 19 were subsequently excluded. The 138 remaining patients (104 men [75%]; median [interquartile range] age, 45 [29-64] years) underwent a median (interquartile range) of 75.5 (42.2-117.1) hours of electrocorticography. A total of 2837 spreading depolarizations occurred in 83 of 138 patients (60.1% incidence) who, compared with patients who did not have spreading depolarizations, had lower prehospital systolic blood pressure levels (mean [SD], 133 [31] mm Hg vs 146 [33] mm Hg; P = .03), more traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (depolarization incidences of 17 of 37 [46%], 18 of 32 [56%], 22 of 33 [67%], and 23 of 30 patients [77%] for Morris-Marshall Grades 0, 1, 2, and 3/4, respectively; P = .047), and worse radiographic pathology (in 38 of 73 patients [52%] and 42 of 60 patients [70%] for Rotterdam Scores 2-4 vs 5-6, respectively; P = .04). Of patients with depolarizations, 32 of 83 (39%) had only sporadic events that induced cortical spreading depression of spontaneous electrical activity, whereas 51 of 83 patients (61%) exhibited temporal clusters of depolarizations (≥3 in a 2-hour span). Nearly half of those with clusters (23 of 51 [45%]) also had depolarizations in an electrically silent area of the cortex (isoelectric spreading depolarization). Patients with clusters did not improve in motor neurologic examinations from presurgery to postelectrocorticography, while other patients did improve. In multivariate ordinal regression adjusting for baseline prognostic variables, the occurrence of depolarization clusters had an odds ratio of 2.29 (95% CI, 1.13-4.65; P = .02) for worse outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with acute brain trauma, spreading depolarizations were predominant but heterogeneous and independently associated with poor neurologic recovery. Monitoring the occurrence of spreading depolarizations may identify patients most likely to benefit from targeted management strategies.
Importance: Advances in treatment of traumatic brain injury are hindered by the inability to monitor pathological mechanisms in individual patients for targeted neuroprotective treatment. Spreading depolarizations, a mechanism of lesion development in animal models, are a novel candidate for clinical monitoring in patients with brain trauma who need surgery. Objective: To test the null hypothesis that spreading depolarizations are not associated with worse neurologic outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted from February 2009 to August 2013 in 5 level 1 trauma centers. Consecutive patients who required neurological surgery for treatment of acute brain trauma and for whom research consent could be obtained were enrolled; participants were excluded because of technical problems in data quality, patient withdrawal, or loss to follow-up. Primary statistical analysis took place from April to December 2018. Evaluators of outcome assessments were blinded to other measures. Interventions: A 6-contact electrode strip was placed on the brain surface during surgery for continuous electrocorticography during intensive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Electrocorticography was scored for depolarizations, following international consensus procedures. Six-month outcomes were assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score. Results: A total of 157 patients were initially enrolled; 19 were subsequently excluded. The 138 remaining patients (104 men [75%]; median [interquartile range] age, 45 [29-64] years) underwent a median (interquartile range) of 75.5 (42.2-117.1) hours of electrocorticography. A total of 2837 spreading depolarizations occurred in 83 of 138 patients (60.1% incidence) who, compared with patients who did not have spreading depolarizations, had lower prehospital systolic blood pressure levels (mean [SD], 133 [31] mm Hg vs 146 [33] mm Hg; P = .03), more traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (depolarization incidences of 17 of 37 [46%], 18 of 32 [56%], 22 of 33 [67%], and 23 of 30 patients [77%] for Morris-Marshall Grades 0, 1, 2, and 3/4, respectively; P = .047), and worse radiographic pathology (in 38 of 73 patients [52%] and 42 of 60 patients [70%] for Rotterdam Scores 2-4 vs 5-6, respectively; P = .04). Of patients with depolarizations, 32 of 83 (39%) had only sporadic events that induced cortical spreading depression of spontaneous electrical activity, whereas 51 of 83 patients (61%) exhibited temporal clusters of depolarizations (≥3 in a 2-hour span). Nearly half of those with clusters (23 of 51 [45%]) also had depolarizations in an electrically silent area of the cortex (isoelectric spreading depolarization). Patients with clusters did not improve in motor neurologic examinations from presurgery to postelectrocorticography, while other patients did improve. In multivariate ordinal regression adjusting for baseline prognostic variables, the occurrence of depolarization clusters had an odds ratio of 2.29 (95% CI, 1.13-4.65; P = .02) for worse outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with acute brain trauma, spreading depolarizations were predominant but heterogeneous and independently associated with poor neurologic recovery. Monitoring the occurrence of spreading depolarizations may identify patients most likely to benefit from targeted management strategies.
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: Yara Alfawares; Kinsey A Barhorst; Jennifer L McGuire; Steve C Danzer; Jed A Hartings; Laura B Ngwenya Journal: Cell Mol Neurobiol Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 5.046
Authors: R David Andrew; Eszter Farkas; Jed A Hartings; K C Brennan; Oscar Herreras; Michael Müller; Sergei A Kirov; Cenk Ayata; Nikita Ollen-Bittle; Clemens Reiffurth; Omer Revah; R Meldrum Robertson; Ken D Dawson-Scully; Ghanim Ullah; Jens P Dreier Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: R David Andrew; Jed A Hartings; Cenk Ayata; K C Brennan; Ken D Dawson-Scully; Eszter Farkas; Oscar Herreras; Sergei A Kirov; Michael Müller; Nikita Ollen-Bittle; Clemens Reiffurth; Omer Revah; R Meldrum Robertson; C William Shuttleworth; Ghanim Ullah; Jens P Dreier Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.532