Mannitol for acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Mannitol is sometimes effective in reversing acute brain swelling, but its effectiveness in the ongoing management of severe head injury remains unclear. There is evidence that, in prolonged dosage, mannitol may pass from the blood into the brain, where it might cause increased intracranial pressure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different mannitol therapy regimens, of mannitol compared to other intracranial pressure (ICP) lowering agents, and to quantify the effectiveness of mannitol administration given at other stages following acute traumatic brain injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) and PubMed. We checked reference lists of trials and review articles, and contacted authors of trials. The search was updated on the 20th April 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of mannitol, in patients with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. The comparison group could be placebo-controlled, no drug, different dose, or different drug. We excluded cross-over trials, and trials where the intervention was started more than eight weeks after injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently rated quality of allocation concealment and extracted the data. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each trial on an intention to treat basis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four eligible randomised controlled trials. One trial compared ICP-directed therapy to 'standard care' (RR for death = 0.83; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.46). One trial compared mannitol to pentobarbital (RR for death = 0.85; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38). One trial compared mannitol to hypertonic saline (RR for death = 1.25; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.33). One trial tested the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol against placebo (RR for death = 1.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 6.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mannitol therapy for raised ICP may have a beneficial effect on mortality when compared to pentobarbital treatment, but may have a detrimental effect on mortality when compared to hypertonic saline. ICP-directed treatment shows a small beneficial effect compared to treatment directed by neurological signs and physiological indicators. There are insufficient data on the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol.

WITHDRAWN: Antiepileptic drugs for preventing seizures following acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Seizure activity in the early post-traumatic period following head injury may cause secondary brain damage as a result of increased metabolic demands, raised intracranial pressure and excess neurotransmitter release. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of prophylactic anti-epileptic agents for acute traumatic head injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group specialised register, MEDLINE and the registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We contacted pharmaceutical companies who manufacture anti-epileptic agents, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Epilepsy Division, and the United States' National Institute of Health. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials of anti-epileptic agents, in which study participants had a clinically defined acute traumatic head injury of any severity. Trials in which the intervention was started more than eight weeks after injury were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the trial quality. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for each trial on an intention-to-treat basis, which included pre-drug loading exclusions. As long as statistical heterogeneity did not exist, for dichotomous data, summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a fixed effects model. Where the source of heterogeneity could obviously be related to allocation concealment, drug type, or drug dose, we stratified the analyses on that dimension. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 eligible randomised controlled trials, including 2036 participants, but data was unavailable for four unpublished trials, representing 631 participants and they were excluded. For the remaining six trials, the pooled relative risk (RR) for early seizure prevention was 0.34 (95%CI 0.21, 0.54); based on this estimate, for every 100 patients treated, 10 would be kept seizure free in the first week. Seizure control in the acute phase was not accompanied by a reduction in mortality (RR = 1.15; 95%CI 0.89, 1.51), a reduction in death and neurological disability (RR = 1.49; 95%CI 1.06, 2.08 for carbamazepine and RR = 0.96; 95%CI 0.72, 1.26 for phenytoin) or a reduction in late seizures (pooled RR = 1.28; 95%CI 0.90, 1.81). The pooled relative risk for skin rashes was 1.57 (95%CI 0.57, 39.88). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic anti-epileptics are effective in reducing early seizures, but there is no evidence that treatment with prophylactic anti-epileptics reduces the occurrence of late seizures, or has any effect on death and neurological disability. Insufficient evidence is available to establish the net benefit of prophylactic treatment at any time after injury.

Human albumin solution for resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Human albumin solutions are used for a range of medical and surgical problems. Licensed indications are the emergency treatment of shock and other conditions where restoration of blood volume is urgent, such as in burns and hypoproteinaemia. Human albumin solutions are more expensive than other colloids and crystalloids. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect on mortality of human albumin and plasma protein fraction (PPF) administration in the management of critically ill patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (searched 31 May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1948 to week 3 May 2011), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to Week 21 2011), CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to May 2011), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to May 2011), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to May 2011), PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/) (searched 10 June 2011, limit: last 60 days). Reference lists of trials and review articles were checked, and authors of identified trials were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing albumin or PPF with no albumin or PPF or with a crystalloid solution in critically ill patients with hypovolaemia, burns or hypoalbuminaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on the participants, albumin solution used, mortality at the end of follow up, and quality of allocation concealment. Analysis was stratified according to patient type. MAIN RESULTS: We found 38 trials meeting the inclusion criteria and reporting death as an outcome. There were 1,958 deaths among 10,842 trial participants.For hypovolaemia, the relative risk of death following albumin administration was 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.13). This estimate was heavily influenced by the results of the SAFE trial, which contributed 75.2% of the information (based on the weights in the meta-analysis). For burns, the relative risk was 2.93 (95% CI 1.28 to 6.72) and for hypoalbuminaemia the relative risk was 1.26 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.88). There was no substantial heterogeneity between the trials in the various categories (Chi(2) = 26.66, df = 31, P = 0.69). The pooled relative risk of death with albumin administration was 1.05 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.16). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For patients with hypovolaemia, there is no evidence that albumin reduces mortality when compared with cheaper alternatives such as saline. There is no evidence that albumin reduces mortality in critically ill patients with burns and hypoalbuminaemia. The possibility that there may be highly selected populations of critically ill patients in which albumin may be indicated remains open to question. However, in view of the absence of evidence of a mortality benefit from albumin and the increased cost of albumin compared to alternatives such as saline, it would seem reasonable that albumin should only be used within the context of well concealed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials.