急性脑损伤后多模式脑监测支持的神经重症监护管理。

Elisabete Monteiro, António Ferreira, Edite Raquel Mendes, Sofia Rocha E Silva, Isabel Maia, Cláudia Camila Dias, Marek Czosnyka, José Artur Paiva, Celeste Dias
{"title":"急性脑损伤后多模式脑监测支持的神经重症监护管理。","authors":"Elisabete Monteiro,&nbsp;António Ferreira,&nbsp;Edite Raquel Mendes,&nbsp;Sofia Rocha E Silva,&nbsp;Isabel Maia,&nbsp;Cláudia Camila Dias,&nbsp;Marek Czosnyka,&nbsp;José Artur Paiva,&nbsp;Celeste Dias","doi":"10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care units were included. Neurocritical care unit management was compared to general intensive care unit management. Patients managed with multimodal brain monitoring and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure were compared with general management patients. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow outcome scale score of 4 or 5.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 389 patients, 237 were admitted to the neurocritical care unit, and 152 were admitted to the general intensive care unit. Neurocritical care unit management patients had a lower risk of poor outcome (OR = 0.228). A subgroup of 69 patients with multimodal brain monitoring (G1) was compared with the remaining patients (G2). In the G1 and G2 groups, 59% versus 23% of patients, respectively, had a good outcome at intensive care unit discharge; 64% versus 31% had a good outcome at 28 days; 76% versus 50% had a good outcome at 3 months (p < 0.001); and 77% versus 58% had a good outcome at 6 months (p = 0.005). When outcomes were adjusted by SAPS II severity score, using good outcome as the dependent variable, the results were as follows: for G1 compared to G2, the OR was 4.607 at intensive care unit discharge (p < 0.001), 4.22 at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3.250 at 3 months (p = 0.001) and 2.529 at 6 months (p = 0.006). Patients with optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management (n = 127) had a better outcome at all points of evaluation. Mortality for those patients was significantly lower at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3 months (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10406405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurocritical care management supported by multimodal brain monitoring after acute brain injury.\",\"authors\":\"Elisabete Monteiro,&nbsp;António Ferreira,&nbsp;Edite Raquel Mendes,&nbsp;Sofia Rocha E Silva,&nbsp;Isabel Maia,&nbsp;Cláudia Camila Dias,&nbsp;Marek Czosnyka,&nbsp;José Artur Paiva,&nbsp;Celeste Dias\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care units were included. Neurocritical care unit management was compared to general intensive care unit management. Patients managed with multimodal brain monitoring and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure were compared with general management patients. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow outcome scale score of 4 or 5.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 389 patients, 237 were admitted to the neurocritical care unit, and 152 were admitted to the general intensive care unit. Neurocritical care unit management patients had a lower risk of poor outcome (OR = 0.228). A subgroup of 69 patients with multimodal brain monitoring (G1) was compared with the remaining patients (G2). In the G1 and G2 groups, 59% versus 23% of patients, respectively, had a good outcome at intensive care unit discharge; 64% versus 31% had a good outcome at 28 days; 76% versus 50% had a good outcome at 3 months (p < 0.001); and 77% versus 58% had a good outcome at 6 months (p = 0.005). When outcomes were adjusted by SAPS II severity score, using good outcome as the dependent variable, the results were as follows: for G1 compared to G2, the OR was 4.607 at intensive care unit discharge (p < 0.001), 4.22 at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3.250 at 3 months (p = 0.001) and 2.529 at 6 months (p = 0.006). Patients with optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management (n = 127) had a better outcome at all points of evaluation. Mortality for those patients was significantly lower at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3 months (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10406405/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230036-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估不同重症监护室和脑监测水平与急性脑损伤预后的关系。方法:包括入住重症监护室的创伤性脑损伤和蛛网膜下腔出血患者。将神经重症监护室的管理与普通重症监护室管理进行比较。将采用多模式脑监测和最佳脑灌注压力管理的患者与一般管理的患者进行比较。良好的结果被定义为格拉斯哥结果量表评分为4或5。结果:在389名患者中,237人入住神经重症监护室,152人入住普通重症监护室。神经重症监护室管理患者的不良结局风险较低(OR=0.228)。将69名接受多模式脑监测的患者(G1)与其余患者(G2)进行比较。在G1组和G2组中,分别有59%和23%的患者在重症监护室出院时有良好的结果;64%对31%在28天时有良好的结果;76%对50%在3个月时有良好的结果(p<0.001);77%对58%在6个月时有良好的结果(p=0.005)。当用SAPS II严重程度评分以良好结果作为因变量对结果进行调整时,结果如下:G1与G2相比,重症监护室出院时的OR为4.607(p<0.001),28天时为4.22(p=0.001),3个月时3.250(p=0.001),6个月时2.529(p=0.006)。采用最佳脑灌注压力管理的患者(n=127)在所有评估点都有更好的结果。这些患者的死亡率在28天(p=0.001)、3个月(p<0.001)和6个月(p=0.001)时显著降低。结论:具有自动调节和神经重症监护室管理的多模式大脑监测与更好的结果相关,应在严重急性脑损伤后考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neurocritical care management supported by multimodal brain monitoring after acute brain injury.

Objective: To evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury.

Methods: Patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care units were included. Neurocritical care unit management was compared to general intensive care unit management. Patients managed with multimodal brain monitoring and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure were compared with general management patients. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow outcome scale score of 4 or 5.

Results: Among 389 patients, 237 were admitted to the neurocritical care unit, and 152 were admitted to the general intensive care unit. Neurocritical care unit management patients had a lower risk of poor outcome (OR = 0.228). A subgroup of 69 patients with multimodal brain monitoring (G1) was compared with the remaining patients (G2). In the G1 and G2 groups, 59% versus 23% of patients, respectively, had a good outcome at intensive care unit discharge; 64% versus 31% had a good outcome at 28 days; 76% versus 50% had a good outcome at 3 months (p < 0.001); and 77% versus 58% had a good outcome at 6 months (p = 0.005). When outcomes were adjusted by SAPS II severity score, using good outcome as the dependent variable, the results were as follows: for G1 compared to G2, the OR was 4.607 at intensive care unit discharge (p < 0.001), 4.22 at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3.250 at 3 months (p = 0.001) and 2.529 at 6 months (p = 0.006). Patients with optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management (n = 127) had a better outcome at all points of evaluation. Mortality for those patients was significantly lower at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3 months (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Multimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association between hair cortisol concentration and acute stress symptoms in family members of critically ill patients: a cross-sectional study. Reply to: Factors associated with mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome due to COVID-19 evolution. Advancing insights in critical COVID-19: unraveling lymphopenia through propensity score matching - Findings from the Multicenter LYMPH-COVID Study. Daily Chlorhexidine Bath for Health Care Associated Infection Prevention (CLEAN-IT): protocol for a multicenter cluster randomized crossover open-label trial. Reply to: Neurocritical care management supported by multimodal brain monitoring after acute brain injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1