Browsing by Author "Michael, Daniel B."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)
    (Springer, 2019-12-01) Hawryluk, Gregory W. J.; Aguilera, Sergio; Buki, Andras; Bulger, Eileen; Citerio, Giuseppe; Cooper, D. Jamie; Arrastia, Ramon Diaz; Diringer, Michael; Figaji, Anthony; Gao, Guoyi; Geocadin, Romergryko; Ghajar, Jamshid; Harris, Odette; Hoffer, Alan; Hutchinson, Peter; Joseph, Mathew; Kitagawa, Ryan; Manley, Geoffrey; Mayer, Stephan; Menon, David K.; Meyfroidt, Geert; Michael, Daniel B.; Oddo, Mauro; Okonkwo, David; Patel, Mayur; Robertson, Claudia; Rosenfeld, Jeffrey V.; Rubiano, Andres M.; Sahuquillo, Juan; Servadei, Franco; Shutter, Lori; Stein, Deborah; Stocchetti, Nino; Taccone, Fabio Silvio; Timmons, Shelly; Tsai, Eve; Ullman, Jamie S.; Vespa, Paul; Videtta, Walter; Wright, David W.; Zammit, Christopher; Chesnut, Randall M.; Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based. Methods We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists’ decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations. Results We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination. Conclusions Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Chesnut, Randall M.; Aguilera, Sergio; Buki, Andras; Bulger, Eileen M.; Citerio, Giuseppe; Cooper, D. Jamie; Diaz Arrastia, Ramon; Diringer, Michael; Figaji, Anthony; Gao, Guoyi; Geocadin, Romergryko G.; Ghajar, Jamshid; Harris, Odette; Hawryluk, Gregory W. J.; Hoffer, Alan; Hutchinson, Peter; Joseph, Mathew; Kitagawa, Ryan; Manley, Geoffrey; Mayer, Stephan; Menon, David K.; Meyfroidt, Geert; Michael, Daniel B.; Oddo, Mauro; Okonkwo, David O.; Patel, Mayur B.; Robertson, Claudia; Rosenfeld, Jeffrey V.; Rubiano, Andres M.; Sahuquillo, Juain; Servadei, Franco; Shutter, Lori; Stein, Deborah M.; Stocchetti, Nino; Taccone, Fabio Silvio; Timmons, Shelly D.; Tsai, Eve C.; Ullman, Jamie S.; Videtta, Walter; Wright, David W.; Zammit, Christopher; Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. Objective: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. Methods: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. Results: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. Conclusion: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.