Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

A Survey on Monitoring and Management of Cerebral Vasospasm and Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Mantra Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral infarction from delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) is a leading cause of poor neurological outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). We performed an international clinical practice survey to identify monitoring and management strategies for cerebral vasospasm associated with DCI in aSAH patients requiring intensive care unit admission. METHODS: The survey questionnaire was available on the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (May 2021-June 2022) and Neurocritical Care Society (April - June 2022) websites following endorsement by these societies. RESULTS: There were 292 respondents from 240 centers in 38 countries. In conscious aSAH patients or those able to tolerate an interruption of sedation, neurological examination was the most frequently used diagnostic modality to detect delayed neurological deficits related to DCI caused by cerebral vasospasm (278 respondents, 95.2%), while in unconscious patients transcranial Doppler/cerebral ultrasound was most frequently used modality (200, 68.5%). Computed tomography angiography was mostly used to confirm the presence of vasospasm as a cause of DCI. Nimodipine was administered for DCI prophylaxis by the majority of the respondents (257, 88%), mostly by an enteral route (206, 71.3%). If there was a significant reduction in arterial blood pressure after nimodipine administration, a vasopressor was added and nimodipine dosage unchanged (131, 45.6%) or reduced (122, 42.5%). Induced hypertension was used by 244 (85%) respondents as first-line management of DCI related to vasospasm; 168 (59.6%) respondents used an intra-arterial procedure as second-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated variability in monitoring and management strategies for DCI related to vasospasm after aSAH. These findings may be helpful in promoting educational programs and future research.

Proceedings of the First Curing Coma Campaign NIH Symposium: Challenging the Future of Research for Coma and Disorders of Consciousness.

Coma and disorders of consciousness (DoC) are highly prevalent and constitute a burden for patients, families, and society worldwide. As part of the Curing Coma Campaign, the Neurocritical Care Society partnered with the National Institutes of Health to organize a symposium bringing together experts from all over the world to develop research targets for DoC. The conference was structured along six domains: (1) defining endotype/phenotypes, (2) biomarkers, (3) proof-of-concept clinical trials, (4) neuroprognostication, (5) long-term recovery, and (6) large datasets. This proceedings paper presents actionable research targets based on the presentations and discussions that occurred at the conference. We summarize the background, main research gaps, overall goals, the panel discussion of the approach, limitations and challenges, and deliverables that were identified.

A California Hospital's Response to COVID-19: From a Ripple to a Tsunami Warning.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rippled across the world from Wuhan, China, to the shores of the United States within a few months. Hospitals and intensive care units were suddenly faced with a "tsunami" warning requiring instantaneous implementation and escalation of disaster plans. EVIDENCE REVIEW: An evidence-based question was developed and an extensive review of the literature was completed, resulting in a structured plan for the intensive care units to manage a surge of patients critically ill with COVID-19 in March 2020. Twenty-five sources of evidence focusing on pandemic intensive care unit and COVID-19 management laid the foundation for the team to navigate the crisis. IMPLEMENTATION: The Critical Care Services task force adopted recommendations from the CHEST consensus statement on surge capacity principles and other sources, which served as the framework for the organized response. The 4 S's became the focus: space, staff, supplies, and systems. Development of algorithms, workflows, and new processes related to treating patients, staffing shortages, and limited supplies. New intensive care unit staffing solutions were adopted. EVALUATION: Using a framework based on the literature reviewed, the Critical Care Services task force controlled the surge of patients with COVID-19 in March through May 2020. Patients received excellent care, and the mortality rate was 0.008%. The intensive care unit team had the needed respiratory and general supplies but had to continually adapt to shortages of personal protective equipment, cleaning products, and some medications. SUSTAINABILITY: The intensive care unit pandemic response plan has been established and the team is prepared for the next wave of COVID-19.

A Perspective from the Neurocritical Care Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Team-Based Care for Neurological Critical Illness.

The Neurocritical Care Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine have worked together to create a perspective regarding the Standards of Neurologic Critical Care Units (Moheet et al. in Neurocrit Care 29:145-160, 2018). The most neurologically ill or injured patients warrant the highest standard of care available; this supports the need for defining and establishing specialized neurological critical care units. Rather than interpreting the Standards as being exclusionary, it is most appropriate to embrace them in the setting of team-based care. Since there are many more patients than there are highly specialized beds, collaborative care and appropriate transfer agreements are essential in promoting excellent patient outcomes. This viewpoint addresses areas of clarification and emphasizes the need for collegiality and partnership in delivering the best specialty critical care to our patients.

Increasing Adherence to Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines for Hospital Care of Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The Brain Trauma Foundation has developed treatment guidelines for the care of patients with acute traumatic brain injury. The Adam Williams Initiative is a program established to provide education and resources to encourage hospitals across the United States to incorporate the guidelines into practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship in hospitals between participation in the Adam Williams Initiative and adherence to the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. METHOD: Hospitals that participated in the Adam Williams Initiative entered data into an online tracking system of patients with traumatic brain injury for at least 2 years after the initial site training. Data included baseline hospital records and daily records on hospital care of patients with traumatic brain injury, including blood pressure, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, oxygenation, and other data relevant to the 15 key metrics in the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines. RESULTS: The 16 hospitals funded by the Adam Williams Initiative had good overall adherence to the 15 key metrics of the recommendations detailed in the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines. Variability in results was primarily due to data collection methods and analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Adam Williams Initiative helps promote adherence to the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for hospital care of patients with traumatic brain injury by providing a platform for developing and standardizing best practices. Participation in the initiative is associated with high adherence to clinical guidelines, a situation that may subsequently improve care and outcomes for patients with traumatic brain injury.

A National Trial on Differences in Cerebral Perfusion Pressure Values by Measurement Location.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) is a key parameter in management of brain injury with suspected impaired cerebral autoregulation. CPP is calculated by subtracting intracranial pressure (ICP) from mean arterial pressure (MAP). Despite consensus on importance of CPP monitoring, substantial variations exist on anatomical reference points used to measure arterial MAP when calculating CPP. This study aimed to identify differences in CPP values based on measurement location when using phlebostatic axis (PA) or tragus (Tg) as anatomical reference points. The secondary study aim was to determine impact of differences on patient outcomes at discharge. METHODS: This was a prospective, repeated measures, multi-site national trial. Adult ICU patients with neurological injury necessitating ICP and CPP monitoring were consecutively enrolled from seven sites. Daily MAP/ICP/CPP values were gathered with the arterial transducer at the PA, followed by the Tg as anatomical reference points. RESULTS: A total of 136 subjects were enrolled, resulting in 324 paired observations. There were significant differences for CPP when comparing values obtained at PA and Tg reference points (p < 0.000). Differences remained significant in repeated measures model when controlling for clinical factors (mean CPP-PA = 80.77, mean CPP-Tg = 70.61, p < 0.000). When categorizing CPP as binary endpoint, 18.8% of values were identified as adequate with PA values, yet inadequate with CPP values measured at the Tg. CONCLUSION: Findings identify numerical differences for CPP based on anatomical reference location and highlight importance of a standard reference point for both clinical practice and future trials to limit practice variations and heterogeneity of findings.