Margot Kelly-Hedrick, Sunny Liu, Jordan Hatfield, Alexandria L Soto, Alyssa M Bartlett, Helen J Heo, Ellen O'Callaghan, Evangeline Arulraja, Samantha Kaplan, Tetsu Ohnuma, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, Katherine Colton, Jordan Komisarow
{"title":"Management of traumatic brain injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome-What evidence exists? A scoping review.","authors":"Margot Kelly-Hedrick, Sunny Liu, Jordan Hatfield, Alexandria L Soto, Alyssa M Bartlett, Helen J Heo, Ellen O'Callaghan, Evangeline Arulraja, Samantha Kaplan, Tetsu Ohnuma, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, Katherine Colton, Jordan Komisarow","doi":"10.1177/17511437241311398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Up to 20% of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with increased odds of mortality. Guideline-based treatment for ARDS includes \"lung protective\" ventilation strategies, some of which are in opposition to \"brain protective\" strategies used for ventilation with patients with TBI. We conducted a scoping review of ventilation management strategies with clinical outcomes among patients with TBI and ARDS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science) using a systematic search strategy. We included any studies of patients with TBI and ARDS with ventilation strategies including PEEP, oxygenation, prone positioning, recruitment maneuvers, pulmonary vasodilators (e.g., nitric oxide), high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All clinical outcomes were included. Extracted data included details about sample (age, gender), study design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention details, and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search returned 10,514 articles, 35 of which met final inclusion criteria. Interventions studied included ECMO (<i>n</i> = 13 articles), HFOV (<i>n</i> = 4), PEEP interventions (<i>n</i> = 3), prone positioning (<i>n</i> = 3), vasodilators (<i>n</i> = 4), and other lung recruitment maneuvers (<i>n</i> = 9). No randomized controlled trials were identified; studies were mostly case reports (<i>n</i> = 18/35, 51%) and series (<i>n</i> = 7/35, 20%), with some cohort studies (<i>n</i> = 5/35, 14%) and non-randomized experimental trials (<i>n</i> = 5/35, 14%), all at single institutions. Outcomes included physiologic changes (e.g., change in cerebrodynamics or hemodynamics with intervention) and clinical outcomes such as mortality, complications, or neurologic recovery. Five studies (14%) included pediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In this scoping review of ventilatory strategies for patients with concurrent TBI and ARDS, we found variation in heterogeneity of study design, interventions, and outcomes. Studies were mostly case report/series and observational studies, seriously limiting our ability to draw conclusions about effectiveness of interventions. Targeted areas of further research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":" ","pages":"17511437241311398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437241311398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Up to 20% of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with increased odds of mortality. Guideline-based treatment for ARDS includes "lung protective" ventilation strategies, some of which are in opposition to "brain protective" strategies used for ventilation with patients with TBI. We conducted a scoping review of ventilation management strategies with clinical outcomes among patients with TBI and ARDS.
Methods: We searched three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science) using a systematic search strategy. We included any studies of patients with TBI and ARDS with ventilation strategies including PEEP, oxygenation, prone positioning, recruitment maneuvers, pulmonary vasodilators (e.g., nitric oxide), high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All clinical outcomes were included. Extracted data included details about sample (age, gender), study design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention details, and outcomes.
Results: The search returned 10,514 articles, 35 of which met final inclusion criteria. Interventions studied included ECMO (n = 13 articles), HFOV (n = 4), PEEP interventions (n = 3), prone positioning (n = 3), vasodilators (n = 4), and other lung recruitment maneuvers (n = 9). No randomized controlled trials were identified; studies were mostly case reports (n = 18/35, 51%) and series (n = 7/35, 20%), with some cohort studies (n = 5/35, 14%) and non-randomized experimental trials (n = 5/35, 14%), all at single institutions. Outcomes included physiologic changes (e.g., change in cerebrodynamics or hemodynamics with intervention) and clinical outcomes such as mortality, complications, or neurologic recovery. Five studies (14%) included pediatric patients.
Discussion: In this scoping review of ventilatory strategies for patients with concurrent TBI and ARDS, we found variation in heterogeneity of study design, interventions, and outcomes. Studies were mostly case report/series and observational studies, seriously limiting our ability to draw conclusions about effectiveness of interventions. Targeted areas of further research are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.