Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. OBJECTIVE: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. METHODS: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. RESULTS: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. CONCLUSION: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.

Prognostication and Goals of Care Decisions in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Survey of The Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference Working Group.

Abstract Best practice guidelines have advanced severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) care; however, there is little that currently informs goals of care decisions and processes despite their importance and frequency. Panelists from the Seattle International severe traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC) participated in a survey consisting of 24 questions. Questions queried use of prognostic calculators, variability in and responsibility for goals of care decisions, and acceptability of neurological outcomes, as well as putative means of improving decisions that might limit care. A total of 97.6% of the 42 SIBICC panelists completed the survey. Responses to most questions were highly variable. Overall, panelists reported infrequent use of prognostic calculators, and observed variability in patient prognostication and goals of care decisions. They felt that it would be beneficial for physicians to improve consensus on what constitutes an acceptable neurological outcome as well as what chance of achieving that outcome is acceptable. Panelists felt that the public should help to define what constitutes a good outcome and expressed some support for a "nihilism guard." More than 50% of panelists felt that if it was certain to be permanent, a vegetative state or lower severe disability would justify a withdrawal of care decision, whereas 15% felt that upper severe disability justified such a decision. Whether conceptualizing an ideal or existing prognostic calculator to predict death or an unacceptable outcome, on average a 64-69% chance of a poor outcome was felt to justify treatment withdrawal. These results demonstrate important variability in goals of care decision making and a desire to reduce this variability. Our panel of recognized TBI experts opined on the neurological outcomes and chances of those outcomes that might prompt consideration of care withdrawal; however, imprecision of prognostication and existing prognostication tools is a significant impediment to standardizing the approach to care-limiting decisions.

International Survey of Antiseizure Medication Use in Patients with Complicated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A New York Neurotrauma Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: Seizures and epilepsy after traumatic brain injury (TBI) negatively affect quality of life and longevity. Antiseizure medication (ASM) prophylaxis after severe TBI is associated with improved outcomes; these medications are rarely used in mild TBI. However, a paucity of research is available to inform ASM use in complicated mild TBI (cmTBI) and no empirically based clinical care guidelines for ASM use in cmTBI exist. We aim to identify seizure prevention and management strategies used by clinicians experienced in treating patients with cmTBI to characterize standard care and inform a systematic approach to clinical decision making regarding ASM prophylaxis. METHODS: We recruited a multidisciplinary international cohort through professional organizational listservs and social media platforms. Our questionnaire assessed factors influencing ASM prophylaxis after cmTBI at the individual, institutional, and health system-wide levels. RESULTS: Ninety-two providers with experience managing cmTBI completed the survey. We found a striking diversity of ASM use in cmTBI, with 30% of respondents reporting no/infrequent use and 42% reporting frequent use; these tendencies did not differ by provider or institutional characteristics. Certain conditions universally increased or decreased the likelihood of ASM use and represent consensus. Based on survey results, ASMs are commonly used in patients with cmTBI who experience acute secondary seizure or select positive neuroimaging findings; we advise caution in elderly patients and those with concomitant neuropsychiatric illness. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to characterize factors influencing clinical decision making in ASM prophylaxis after cmTBI based on multidisciplinary multicenter provider practices. Prospective controlled studies are necessary to inform standardized guideline development.

Women Neurosurgeons in Academic and Other Leadership Positions in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the status of women neurosurgeons (WNS) in academic faculty and/or leadership positions in neurosurgery in the United States. METHODS: Neurosurgery academic programs were defined as having an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) neurosurgery residency program (NSRP). Using a Google search, gender, academic rank, postgraduate degrees, academic and clinical titles, and subspecialty were recorded for each neurosurgery faculty. Officer gender was recorded for the top 7 neurosurgery U.S. organizations, 7 subspecialty sections, and 50 state neurosurgical societies. RESULTS: WNS were faculty at 77% (89/115) of ACGME NSRPs and constituted 10% of the workforce (186/1773). WNS residents were in 92% of ACGME NSRPs and constituted 19% of the workforce (293/1515). Two NSRPs (8%) had neither WNS faculty nor WNS residents. Of NSRPs without WNS faculty, 52% (13/25) had a faculty size >10. WNS accounted for 3% of NSRP chair positions. Academic rank of WNS faculty was lower than academic rank of men neurosurgeons faculty (P < 0.05). WNS faculty had a higher number of postgraduate degrees (P < 0.05). Pediatrics was the most common subspecialty (30%) among WNS. Over time, WNS held 1% of the leadership positions within the top 7 U.S. neurosurgery organizations and 7% within the 7 subspecialty sections. Over the past 20 years, 28% (14/50) of U.S. state neurosurgical societies had WNS serve as president. CONCLUSIONS: In 2020, the gender gap for U.S. WNS faculty and residents still exists. By providing informed benchmarks, our study might help neurosurgery organizations, medical school leadership, hiring committees, editors, and conference speakers to plan their next steps.

Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: 2020 Update of the Decompressive Craniectomy Recommendations.

When the fourth edition of the Brain Trauma Foundation's Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury were finalized in late 2016, it was known that the results of the RESCUEicp (Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension) randomized controlled trial of decompressive craniectomy would be public after the guidelines were released. The guideline authors decided to proceed with publication but to update the decompressive craniectomy recommendations later in the spirit of "living guidelines," whereby topics are updated more frequently, and between new editions, when important new evidence is published. The update to the decompressive craniectomy chapter presented here integrates the findings of the RESCUEicp study as well as the recently published 12-mo outcome data from the DECRA (Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury) trial. Incorporation of these publications into the body of evidence led to the generation of 3 new level-IIA recommendations; a fourth previously presented level-IIA recommendation remains valid and has been restated. To increase the utility of the recommendations, we added a new section entitled Incorporating the Evidence into Practice. This summary of expert opinion provides important context and addresses key issues for practitioners, which are intended to help the clinician utilize the available evidence and these recommendations. The full guideline can be found at: https://braintrauma.org/guidelines/guidelines-for-the-management-of-severe-tbi-4th-ed#/.

Pregnancy and parental leave among neurosurgeons and neurosurgical trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Despite recently heightened advocacy efforts relating to pregnancy and family leave policies in multiple surgical specialties, no studies to date have described female neurosurgeons' experiences with childbearing. The AANS/CNS Section of Women in Neurosurgery created the Women and Pregnancy Task Force to ascertain female neurosurgeons' experiences with and attitudes toward pregnancy and the role of family leave policies. METHODS: A voluntary online 28-question survey examined the pregnancy experiences of female neurosurgeons and perceived barriers to childbearing. The survey was developed and electronically distributed to all members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons who self-identified as female in February 2016. Responses from female resident physicians, fellows, and current or retired practicing neurosurgeons were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 126 women (20.3%) responded to the survey; 57 participants (49%) already had children, and 39 (33%) planned to do so. Participants overwhelmingly had or planned to have children during the early practice and senior residency years. The most frequent obstacles experienced or anticipated included insufficient time to care for newborns (47% of women with children, 92% of women planning to have children), discrimination by coworkers (31% and 77%, respectively), and inadequate time for completion of board requirements (18% and 51%, respectively). There was substantial variability in family leave policies, and a minority of participants (35%) endorsed the presence of any formal policy at their institution. Respondents described myriad unique challenges associated with pregnancy and family leave. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy and family leave pose significant challenges to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in neurosurgery. It is thus imperative to promote clear family leave policies for trainees and practitioners, address discrimination surrounding these topics, and encourage forethought and flexibility to tackle obstacles inherent in pregnancy and the early stages of child rearing.

A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC).

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place. METHODS: Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting. RESULTS: We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: These protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.

Rescue Craniectomy with Subsequent Cranioplasty for Recurrent Symptomatic Subdural Hematoma in Elderly Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Recurrent subdural hematoma (SDH) is commonly encountered in clinical practice. Multiple surgical techniques have been reported for management of recurrent SDH with variable success and complication rates. We report an alternative technique to halt SDH reaccumulation in elderly patients with multiple recurrences despite multiple surgical evacuations via rescue craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all symptomatic recurrent SDHs in elderly patients (≥60 years old) who were surgically managed with rescue craniectomy with subsequent cranioplasty from November 2004 to January 2018. Patients' demographics and radiologic and surgical variables were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 287 patients who received surgical treatment for SDH, 19 patients (6.6%) underwent SDH evacuation with rescue craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty were included in the study. The median age of the cohort was 73 years (interquartile range: 62-78 years), with 13 men and 6 women. Trauma was the cause of SDH in most cases. Five patients had acute SDH, 4 patients had subacute SDH, and 10 patients had chronic SDH. Fourteen patients had only 1 recurrence of SDH requiring surgical re-evacuation, and 5 had 2 recurrences. Median interval between craniectomy and cranioplasty was 64.5 days (interquartile range: 15-123.3 days). Four complications were encountered. After cranioplasty, 15 patients had no further hemorrhage or recurrence and 4 patients had stable subdural collection during an average follow-up of 38.2 ± 46.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue craniectomy followed by cranioplasty is a safe and effective salvage technique for the management of symptomatic recurrent SDH in elderly patients.

A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC).

BACKGROUND: Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation's sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based. METHODS: We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists' decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations. RESULTS: We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination. CONCLUSIONS: Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.

Chapter 12: Decompressive Craniectomy: Long Term Outcome and Ethical Considerations.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been established to decrease mortality. Despite the conclusion of the two largest randomized clinical trials associating the effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy vs. medical management for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), there is still clinical equipoise concerning the usefulness of DC in the management of refractory intracranial hypertension. Primary outcome data from these studies reveal either potential harm or that decreased mortality only leads to an upsurge in survivors with severe neurologic incapacity. In this chapter, we seek to review the results of the most recent clinical trials, highlight the prevailing controversies, and offer potential solutions to address this dilemma.

Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury : Consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Two randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) were published in recent years: DECRA in 2011 and RESCUEicp in 2016. As the results have generated debate amongst clinicians and researchers working in the field of TBI worldwide, it was felt necessary to provide general guidance on the use of DC following TBI and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty via a consensus-based approach. METHODS: The International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury took place in Cambridge, UK, on the 28th and 29th September 2017. The meeting was jointly organised by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), AO/Global Neuro and the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma. Discussions and voting were organised around six pre-specified themes: (1) primary DC for mass lesions, (2) secondary DC for intracranial hypertension, (3) peri-operative care, (4) surgical technique, (5) cranial reconstruction and (6) DC in low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: The invited participants discussed existing published evidence and proposed consensus statements. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. CONCLUSIONS: In this manuscript, we present the final consensus-based recommendations. We have also identified areas of uncertainty, where further research is required, including the role of primary DC, the role of hinge craniotomy and the optimal timing and material for skull reconstruction.

Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Fourth Edition.

The scope and purpose of this work is 2-fold: to synthesize the available evidence and to translate it into recommendations. This document provides recommendations only when there is evidence to support them. As such, they do not constitute a complete protocol for clinical use. Our intention is that these recommendations be used by others to develop treatment protocols, which necessarily need to incorporate consensus and clinical judgment in areas where current evidence is lacking or insufficient. We think it is important to have evidence-based recommendations to clarify what aspects of practice currently can and cannot be supported by evidence, to encourage use of evidence-based treatments that exist, and to encourage creativity in treatment and research in areas where evidence does not exist. The communities of neurosurgery and neuro-intensive care have been early pioneers and supporters of evidence-based medicine and plan to continue in this endeavor. The complete guideline document, which summarizes and evaluates the literature for each topic, and supplemental appendices (A-I) are available online at https://www.braintrauma.org/coma/guidelines.

Decompressive Craniectomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic review of the literature to evaluate the role of decompressive craniectomy (DC) after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), comparing the first major randomized clinical trial on this topic (DECRA) with subsequent literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed from 2011 to 2015. Citations were selected using the following inclusion criteria: closed severe TBI and DC. Exclusion criteria included most patients ≤18 years old, ≤20 participants, review articles, DC for reasons other than TBI, or surgical procedures other than DC. Primary outcomes included mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at discharge, 6 months, and 1 year after injury. Assessment of risk of bias of the randomized controlled trials was also performed. RESULTS: Only 12 of 5528 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria; of these studies, 3 were randomized controlled trials. DC in specific populations does not offer GOS or mortality advantages compared with medical treatment; on the other hand, when DC with open dural flap was compared with an alternative means of decompression, e.g., DC with multiple dural stabs, the latter showed significant advantage in mortality and GOS. Nonrandomized studies showed decreased mortality and increased GOS in patients aged ≤50 years when DC was performed <5 hours after TBI and with Glasgow Coma Scale score >5. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the importance of continued international prospective data collection for assessing types of surgical interventions in addition to DC and their timing in patients who have severe TBI. In addition, in geographic areas with limited access to advanced medical treatment for severe TBI, DC is of benefit when performed <5 hours after injury in younger patients with Glasgow Coma Scale >5.