Browsing by Author "Vespa, Paul"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA
    (Oxford University Press, 2022-09-01) Kondziella, Daniel; Amiri, Moshgan; Othman, Marwan H.; Beghi, Ettore; Bodien, Yelena G.; Citerio, Giuseppe; Giacino, Joseph T.; Mayer, Stephan A.; Lawson, Thomas N.; Menon, David K.; Rass, Verena; Sharshar, Tarek; Stevens, Robert D.; Tinti, Lorenzo; Vespa, Paul; McNett, Molly; Venkatasubba Rao, Chethan P.; Helbok, Raimund; Curing Coma Campaign Collaborators; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    The epidemiology of coma is unknown because case ascertainment with traditional methods is difficult. Here, we used crowdsourcing methodology to estimate the incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA. We recruited UK and US laypeople (aged ≥18 years) who were nationally representative (i.e. matched for age, gender and ethnicity according to census data) of the UK and the USA, respectively, utilizing a crowdsourcing platform. We provided a description of coma and asked survey participants if they-'right now' or 'within the last year'-had a family member in coma. These participants (UK n = 994, USA n = 977) provided data on 30 387 family members (UK n = 14 124, USA n = 16 263). We found more coma cases in the USA (n = 47) than in the UK (n = 20; P = 0.009). We identified one coma case in the UK (0.007%, 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.04%) on the day of the survey and 19 new coma cases (0.13%, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.21%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 135/100 000 (95% confidence interval 81-210) and a point prevalence of 7 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 0.18-39.44) in the UK. We identified five cases in the USA (0.031%, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.07%) on the day of the survey and 42 new cases (0.26%, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.35%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 258/100 000 (95% confidence interval 186-349) and a point prevalence of 31 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 9.98-71.73) in the USA. The five most common causes were stroke, medically induced coma, COVID-19, traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest. To summarize, for the first time, we report incidence and prevalence estimates for coma across diagnosis types and settings in the UK and the USA using crowdsourcing methods. Coma may be more prevalent in the USA than in the UK, which requires further investigation. These data are urgently needed to expand the public health perspective on coma and disorders of consciousness.
  • 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
    Proceedings of the Second Curing Coma Campaign NIH Symposium: Challenging the Future of Research for Coma and Disorders of Consciousness
    (Springer, 2022) Mainali, Shraddha; Aiyagari, Venkatesh; Alexander, Sheila; Bodien, Yelena; Boerwinkle, Varina; Boly, Melanie; Brown, Emery; Brown, Jeremy; Claassen, Jan; Edlow, Brian L.; Fink, Ericka L.; Fins, Joseph J.; Foreman, Brandon; Frontera, Jennifer; Geocadin, Romergryko G.; Giacino, Joseph; Gilmore, Emily J.; Gosseries, Olivia; Hammond, Flora; Helbok, Raimund; Hemphill, J. Claude; Hirsch, Karen; Kim, Keri; Laureys, Steven; Lewis, Ariane; Ling, Geoffrey; Livesay, Sarah L.; McCredie, Victoria; McNett, Molly; Menon, David; Molteni, Erika; Olson, DaiWai; O’Phelan, Kristine; Park, Soojin; Polizzotto, Len; Provencio, Jose Javier; Puybasset, Louis; Venkatasubba Rao, Chethan P.; Robertson, Courtney; Rohaut, Benjamin; Rubin, Michael; Sharshar, Tarek; Shutter, Lori; Silva, Gisele Sampaio; Smith, Wade; Steven, Robert D.; Thibaut, Aurore; Vespa, Paul; Wagner, Amy K.; Ziai, Wendy C.; Zink, Elizabeth; Suarez, Jose I.; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    This proceedings article presents actionable research targets on the basis of the presentations and discussions at the 2nd Curing Coma National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium held from May 3 to May 5, 2021. Here, we summarize the background, research priorities, panel discussions, and deliverables discussed during the symposium across six major domains related to disorders of consciousness. The six domains include (1) Biology of Coma, (2) Coma Database, (3) Neuroprognostication, (4) Care of Comatose Patients, (5) Early Clinical Trials, and (6) Long-term Recovery. Following the 1st Curing Coma NIH virtual symposium held on September 9 to September 10, 2020, six workgroups, each consisting of field experts in respective domains, were formed and tasked with identifying gaps and developing key priorities and deliverables to advance the mission of the Curing Coma Campaign. The highly interactive and inspiring presentations and panel discussions during the 3-day virtual NIH symposium identified several action items for the Curing Coma Campaign mission, which we summarize in this article.