Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB) occurs in approximately 2-4% of critically ill patients. Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) have a (diffuse) space-occupying lesion, are critically ill, often require mechanical ventilation, and frequently receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after aneurysm embolization, all of which may be risk factors for SRMB. However, no studies have evaluated SRMB in patients with aSAH. Aims of the study were to determine the incidence of SRMB in aSAH patients, evaluate the effect of acid suppression on SRMB, and identify specific risk factors for SRMB. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted across 17 centers. Each center reviewed up to 50 of the most recent cases of aSAH. Patients with length of stay (LOS) < 48 h or active GI bleeding on admission were excluded. Variables related to demographics, aSAH severity, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, provision of SRMB prophylaxis, adverse events, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital LOS were collected for the first 21 days of admission or until hospital discharge, whichever came first. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. A multivariate logistic regression modeling was utilized to examine the relationship between specific risk factors and the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding in patients with aSAH. RESULTS: A total of 627 patients were included. The overall incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was 4.9%. Of the patients with clinically important GI bleeding, 19 (61%) received pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of GI bleeding, while 12 (39%) were not on pharmacologic prophylaxis at the onset of GI bleeding. Patients who received an acid suppressant agent were less likely to experience GI bleeding than patients who did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.83). The multivariate regression analysis identified any instance of elevated intracranial pressure, creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min and the incidence of cerebral vasospasm as specific risk factors associated with GI bleeding. Cerebral vasospasm has not previously been described as a risk for GI bleeding (OR 2.5 95% CI 1.09-5.79). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important GI bleeding occurred in 4.9% of patients with aSAH, similar to the general critical care population. Risk factors associated with GI bleeding were prolonged mechanical ventilation (> 48 h), creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min, presence of coagulopathy, elevation of intracranial pressure, and cerebral vasospasm. Further prospective research is needed to confirm this observation within this patient population.

Correction to: Standards for Neurologic Critical Care Units: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from The Neurocritical Care Society.

The authors note that there is a discrepancy between the text of the paper and Table 2 regarding physician subspecialty certification requirements in neurocritical care for Level II centers.

Standards for Neurologic Critical Care Units: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from The Neurocritical Care Society.

Neurocritical care is a distinct subspecialty focusing on the optimal management of acutely ill patients with life-threatening neurologic and neurosurgical disease or with life-threatening neurologic manifestations of systemic disease. Care by expert healthcare providers to optimize neurologic recovery is necessary. Given the lack of an organizational framework and criteria for the development and maintenance of neurological critical care units (NCCUs), this document is put forth by the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS). Recommended organizational structure, personnel and processes necessary to develop a successful neurocritical care program are outlined. Methods: Under the direction of NCS Executive Leadership, a multidisciplinary writing group of NCS members was formed. After an iterative process, a framework was proposed and approved by members of the writing group. A draft was then written, which was reviewed by the NCS Quality Committee and NCS Guidelines Committee, members at large, and posted for public comment. Feedback was formally collated, reviewed and incorporated into the final document which was subsequently approved by the NCS Board of Directors.