Quantitative DECT of Iodine in Chronic Subdural Hematoma as Surrogate of Membrane Exudation: A Pilot Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: We explore the feasibility to estimate the exudation from chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) membranes, by using dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) quantification of iodine leak and test if the derived quantitative variables and membrane morphology correlates with hematoma volume, internal architecture (homogeneous, laminar, separated, and trabecular types), and fractional hyperdense hematoma at presentation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, consecutive CSDH patients with postcontrast DECT head images from January 2020 and June 2021 were analyzed. Predictor variables derived from DECT were correlated with outcome variables followed by mixed-effects regression analysis. RESULTS: The study included 36 patients with 50 observations (mean age, 72.6 years; standard deviation, 11.6 years); 31 were men. Dual-energy CT variables that correlated with hematoma volume were external membrane volume (ρ, 0.37; P = 0.008) and iodine concentration (ρ, -0.29; P = 0.04). Variables that correlated with separated type of hematoma were total iodine leak (median [Q 1 , Q 3 ], 68.3 mg [48.5, 88.9] vs 38.8 mg [15.5, 62.9]; P = 0.001) and iodine leak per unit membrane volume (median [Q 1 , Q 3 ], 16.47 mg/mL [10.19, 20.65] vs 8.68 mg/mL [5.72, 11.41]; P = 0.002). Membrane grade was the only variable that correlated with fractional hyperdense hematoma (ρ, 0.28; P = 0.05). Regression analysis showed total iodine leak as the strongest predictor of separated type hematoma (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.06 per mg [1.01, 1.1]). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy CT demonstrates iodine leak from CSDH membranes. The variables derived from DECT correlated with hematoma volume, internal architecture, and fractional hyperdense hematoma.

Examination of the interaction between method of anesthesia and shunting with carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although the choice of anesthesia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) does not seem to increase the risk of perioperative stroke, it might affect the outcomes of shunting during CEA. This study aims to evaluate whether the choice of anesthesia modifies the association between shunting and in-hospital stroke/death after CEA. METHODS: We retrospective reviewed all CEA cases performed between 2003 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) no shunting during CEA (n = 29,227 [48.4%]), (2) routine shunting (n = 28,673 [47.5%]), and (3) selective shunting based on an intraoperative indication (n = 2499 [4.1%]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to study the interaction between anesthesia (local anesthesia [LA]/regional anesthesia [RA] vs general anesthesia [GA]) and intraoperative shunting (no shunting vs routine and selective shunting) during CEA in predicting the risk of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA. RESULTS: The final cohort included 60,399 patients. The majority of CEA cases (90.2%) were performed under GA. Of the study cohort, 29,227 (48.4%) underwent CEA without shunting, 28,673 patients (47.5%) had routine shunting, and the remaining (n = 2499 [4.1%]) were selectively shunted. The interaction between intraoperative shunting and anesthesia in predicting in-hospital stroke/death was statistically significant (P < .05). When CEA is performed under LA/GA, routine shunting was associated with 3.5 times the adjusted odds of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.8; P < .001) compared with no shunting, whereas selective shunting was associated with 7.1 the odds (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 3.5-14.7; P < .001). In contrast, under GA, there was no significant association between routine shunting and in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P = .12), whereas selective shunting was associated with 1.7 times the odds (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P < .01) compared with not performing shunting during CEA. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LA/RA is associated with increased odds of stroke/death compared with GA when intraoperative shunting is performed. The effect of anesthesia is more pronounced in patients who develop clamp-related ischemia and undergo selective shunting. More controlled studies are needed to explain these findings and validate them.

Predictors for large vessel recanalization before stroke thrombectomy: the HALT score.

BACKGROUND: Large vessel recanalization (LVR) before endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute large vessel ischemic strokes is a poorly understood phenomenon. Better understanding of predictors for LVR is important for optimizing stroke triage and patient selection for bridging thrombolysis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients presenting to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT treatment were identified from 2018 to 2022. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) use, and LVR before EVT were recorded. Factors independently associated with different rates of LVR were identified, and a prediction model for LVR was constructed. RESULTS: 640 patients were identified. 57 (8.9%) patients had LVR before EVT. A minority (36.4%) of LVR patients had significant improvements in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Independent predictors for LVR were identified and used to construct the 8-point HALT score: hyperlipidemia (1 point), atrial fibrillation (1 point), location of vascular occlusion (internal carotid: 0 points, M1: 1 point, M2: 2 points, vertebral/basilar: 3 points), and thrombolysis at least 1.5 hours before angiography (3 points). The HALT score had an area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.90, P<0.001) for predicting LVR. LVR before EVT occurred in only 1 of 302 patients (0.3%) with low (0-2) HALT scores. CONCLUSIONS: IVT at least 1.5 hours before angiography, site of vascular occlusion, atrial fibrillation, and hyperlipidemia are independent predictors for LVR. The 8-point HALT score proposed in this study may be a valuable tool for predicting LVR before EVT.

Adjunctive virtual reality pain relief after traumatic injury: a proof-of-concept within-person randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: In this study, we hypothesized that immersive virtual reality (VR) environments may reduce pain in patients with acute traumatic injuries, including traumatic brain injuries. We performed a randomized within-subject study in patients hospitalized with acute traumatic injuries, including traumatic brain injury with moderate pain (numeric pain score ≥3 of 10). We compared 3 conditions: (1) an immersive VR environment (VR Blu), (2) a content control with the identical environment delivered through nonimmersive tablet computer (Tablet Blu), and (3) a second control composed of donning VR headgear without content to control for placebo effects and sensory deprivation (VR Blank). We enrolled 60 patients, and 48 patients completed all 3 conditions. Objective and subjective data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Controlling for demographics, baseline pain, and injury severity, we found differences by conditions in relieving pain (F 2,75.43 = 3.32, P = 0.042). VR Blu pain reduction was greater than Tablet Blu (-0.92 vs -0.16, P = 0.043), but VR Blu pain reduction was similar to VR Blank (-0.92 vs -1.24, P = 0.241). VR Blu was perceived as most effective by patients for pain reduction (F 2,66.84 = 16.28, P < 0.001), and changes in measures of parasympathetic activity including heart rate variability (F 2,55.511 = 7.87, P < 0.001) and pupillary maximum constriction velocity (F 2,61.41 = 3.50, 1-tailed P = 0.038) echoed these effects. There were no effects on opioid usage. These findings outlined a potential clinical benefit for mollifying pain related to traumatic injuries.

Pain Control and Anxiolysis After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Using Immersive Virtual Reality: A Case Report.

Debilitating headache persists after acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Despite high prevalence, little is known regarding optimal treatment strategies for SAH-related headache. Nonpharmacologic adjunctive therapies are emerging as tools to help treat pain and limit opioid exposure in the hospital. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive audiovisual experience that has been shown to reduce pain perception in other patient populations. The role of VR in acute brain injury is unknown. Here we report a patient with SAH who suffered from persistent headache during her hospitalization despite escalation of analgesic pharmacotherapy. A trial of VR was used as an adjunct to medication over four days. The patient reported subjective improvement in pain and anxiety. VR may provide additional analgesia and anxiolysis over pharmacologic measures alone and warrants further study in patients with acute brain injury.

Adjunctive virtual reality pain relief following traumatic injury: protocol for a randomised within-subjects clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The annual mortality and national expense of the opioid crisis continue to rise in the USA (130 deaths/day, $50 billion/year). Opioid use disorder usually starts with the prescription of opioids for a medical condition. Its risk is associated with greater pain intensity and coping strategies characterised by pain catastrophising. Non-pharmacological analgesics in the hospital setting are critical to abate the opioid epidemic. One promising intervention is virtual reality (VR) therapy. It has performed well as a distraction tool and pain modifier during medical procedures; however, little is known about VR in the acute pain setting following traumatic injury. Furthermore, no studies have investigated VR in the setting of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study aims to establish the safety and effect of VR therapy in the inpatient setting for acute traumatic injuries, including TBI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomised within-subjects clinical study, immersive VR therapy will be compared with two controls in patients with traumatic injury, including TBI. Affective measures including pain catastrophising, trait anxiety and depression will be captured prior to beginning sessions. Before and after each session, we will capture pain intensity and unpleasantness, additional affective measures and physiological measures associated with pain response, such as heart rate and variability, pupillometry and respiratory rate. The primary outcome is the change in pain intensity of the VR session compared with controls. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Dissemination of this protocol will allow researchers and funding bodies to stay abreast in their fields through exposure to research not otherwise widely publicised. Study protocols are compliant with federal regulation and University of Maryland Baltimore's Human Research Protections and Institutional Review Board (protocol number HP-00090603). Study results will be published on completion of enrolment and analysis, and deidentified data can be shared by request to the corresponding author. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04356963; Pre-results.