Browsing by Author "Stein, Deborah M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Establishing a core outcome set for blunt cerebrovascular injury: an EAST modified Delphi method consensus study
    (BMJ, 2023-06-15) Ziesmann, Markus; Byerly, Saskya; Yeh, Daniel Dante; Boltz, Melissa; Gelbard, Rondi; Haut, Elliott R.; Smith, Jason W.; Stein, Deborah M.; Zarzaur, Ben L.; Bensard, Denis D.; Biffl, Walter L.; Boyd, April; Brommeland, Tor; Burlew, Clay Cothren; Fabian, Timothy; Lauerman, Margaret; Leichtle, Stefan; Moore, Ernest E.; Timmons, Shelly; Vogt, Kelly; Nahmias, Jeffry; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Objectives: Our understanding of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we endeavored to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future BCVI research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting. Methods: After a review of landmark BCVI publications, content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score the proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds, and four rounds of deliberation were performed to re-evaluate the variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria. Results: From an initial panel of 15 experts, 12 (80%) completed all rounds. A total of 22 items were considered, with 9 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: incidence of postadmission symptom onset, overall stroke incidence, stroke incidence stratified by type and by treatment category, stroke incidence prior to treatment initiation, time to stroke, overall mortality, bleeding complications, and injury progression on radiographic follow-up. The panel further identified four non-outcome items of high importance for reporting: time to BCVI diagnosis, use of standardized screening tool, duration of treatment, and type of therapy used. Conclusion: Through a well-accepted iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future research on BCVI. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new BCVI research and will allow future projects to generate data suitable for pooled statistical analysis with enhanced statistical power.
  • 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.