An equiosmolar study on early intracranial physiology and long term outcome in severe traumatic brain injury comparing mannitol and hypertonic saline

Effectiveness of hypertonic saline infusion in management of traumatic brain injury: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to find out the efficacy of using Hypertonic saline solution (HSS) over mannitol in the management of TBI by comparing their performance in improving different outcomes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of HSS vs. mannitol on ICP in patients who suffered TBI. Outcomes of interest were mortality, neurologic functional outcomes, risk ratio (RR) of successful ICP treatment, reduction in ICP after 30-60 and 90-120 min, improvement in cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) at 30-60 and 90-120 min, and also treatment failure. Evaluations were reported as RR or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using weighted random-effects models.

RESULTS

The analysis included 624 patients from 15 RCTs. HSS infusion had a significant impact on the improvement of CPP at 30-60 min [MD = 5.54, 95% CI (3.04, 8.03),p < 0.001] compared to mannitol. However, results yielded no significant difference between HSS and mannitol in terms of mortality, neurologic functional outcomes, successful ICP treatment, reduction in ICP after 30-60 min and 90-120 min, improvement in CPP at 90-120 min, and treatment failure.

CONCLUSION

HSS and mannitol are both effective treatments for elevated ICP due to TBI. However, further research is required to derive a better comparison.

Comparing the effects of mannitol and hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury patients with elevated intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Controlling elevated intracranial pressure following brain injury with hyperosmolar agents is one of the mainstay treatments in traumatic brain injury patients. In this study, we compared the effects of hypertonic saline (HS) and mannitol in reducing increased intracranial pressure.

METHODS

A total of 637 patients from 15 studies were included in our meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were mortality, the length of stay in the hospital and ICU, and the Glasgow Outcome Scale at follow-up.

RESULTS

The mortality in the mannitol group was not statistically different compared to the HS group (RR = 1.55; 95% CI = [0.98, 2.47], p = 0.06). The length of stay in the ICU was significantly shorter in the HS group (MD = 1.18, 95% CI = [0.44, 1.92], p < 0.01). In terms of favorable neurological outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two agents (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.11, 7.96], p = 0.94). The duration of the effect was shorter in the mannitol group than in the HS group (MD = -0.67, 95% CI = [-1.00, -0.33], p < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

The results showed that HS and mannitol had similar effects in reducing ICP. Although the HS was associated with a longer duration of effect and shorter ICU stay, other secondary outcomes including mortality rate and favorable neurological outcomes were similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, considering the condition of each patient individually, HS could be a reasonable option than mannitol to reduce ICP in TBI patients.

Hypertonic Saline Versus Other Intracranial-Pressure-Lowering Agents for Patients with Acute Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide. Intracranial pressure (ICP)-lowering is a critical management priority in patients with moderate to severe acute TBI. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline (HTS) versus other ICP-lowering agents in patients with TBI. We conducted a systematic search from 2000 onward for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HTS vs. other ICP-lowering agents in patients with TBI of all ages. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at 6 months (PROSPERO CRD42022324370). Ten RCTs (760 patients) were included. Six RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. There was no evidence of an effect of HTS on the GOS score (favorable vs. unfavorable) compared with other agents (risk ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-1.40; n = 406; 2 RCTs). There was no evidence of an effect of HTS on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60-1.55; n = 486; 5 RCTs) or total length of stay (RR 2.36, 95% CI - 0.53 to 5.25; n = 89; 3 RCTs). HTS was associated with adverse hypernatremia compared with other agents (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09-4.17; n = 386; 2 RCTs). The point estimate favored a reduction in uncontrolled ICP with HTS, but this was not statistically significant (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.04; n = 423; 3 RCTs). Most included RCTs were at unclear or high risk of bias because of lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We found no evidence of an effect of HTS on clinically important outcomes and that HTS is associated with adverse hypernatremia. The included evidence was of low to very low certainty, but ongoing RCTs may help to the reduce this uncertainty. In addition, heterogeneity in GOS score reporting reflects the need for a standardized TBI core outcome set.

Hypertonic saline for traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes mortality and long-term disability among young adults and imposes a notable cost on the healthcare system. In addition to the first physical hit, secondary injury, which is associated with increased intracranial pressure (ICP), is defined as biochemical, cellular, and physiological changes after the physical injury. Mannitol and Hypertonic saline (HTS) are the treatment bases for elevated ICP in TBI. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of HTS in the management of patients with TBI.

METHODS

This study was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods and PRISMA statement. A systematic search was performed through six databases in February 2022, to find studies that evaluated the effects of HTS, on increased ICP. Meta-analysis was performed using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA).

RESULTS

Out of 1321 results, 8 studies were included in the systematic review, and 3 of them were included in the quantitative synthesis. The results of the meta-analysis reached a 35.9% (95% CI 15.0-56.9) reduction in ICP in TBI patients receiving HTS, with no significant risk of publication bias (t-value = 0.38, df = 2, p-value = 0.73). The most common source of bias in our included studies was the transparency of blinding methods for both patients and outcome assessors.

CONCLUSION

HTS can significantly reduce the ICP, which may prevent secondary injury. Also, based on the available evidence, HTS has relatively similar efficacy to Mannitol, which is considered the gold standard therapy for TBI, in boosting patients' neurological condition and reducing mortality rates.

Comparison of different concentrations of hypertonic saline in patients with traumatic brain injury: Evidence from direct and indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND

Until now, it has remained difficult for doctors to make an informative decision as to which concentration of hypertonic saline (HTS) is more beneficial for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). We therefore investigate the effect of different concentrations of hypertonic saline on mortality and ICP lowering efficacy in this group of patients.

METHODS

Several databases including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched comprehensively from inception to February 28, 2022. We only included RCTs that compared HTS with different concentrations and mannitol in adult patients with TBI. The main outcome was mortality from any cause. We reported relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from direct meta-analysis and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) from network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 13 trials containing 593 patients were included in this study. Direct analysis revealed that HTS was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 1.29; 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.54). In the network meta-analysis, 5% HTS was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality compared with mannitol (RR 0.34, 95% CrI: 0.14 to 0.72). We also found 7.5% HTS was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality compared with 5% HTS (RR, 2.87; 95% CrI: 1.00 to 8.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with TBI, the application of 5% HTS was associated with decreased all-cause mortality compared with mannitol and other concentration. Treatments with 10% and 15% HTS was more likely to decrease ICP compared with other fluids. More trials are needed to verify the current findings.

Prehospital Hypertonic Saline Administration After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

A 25-year old male paient was critically injuried in a high speed motor vehicle collision over an hour from the nearest trauma center. Paramedics diagnosed the patient with a traumatic brain injury and increasing intracranial pressure and transported the patient to a predesignated landing zone for helicopter intercept. During transport paramedics initiated a severe traumatic brain injury protocol which included the adminisration of 3% hypertonic saline. The flight crew continued 3% hypertonic saline managment which was later transferred to the receiving trauma team. Upon trauma center arrival the patient was diagnosed with a skull fracture and subdural hematoma. The patient was transitioned to a 3% hypertonic saline infusion for the next 24 h. The need for integrating systems of care is particularly important when managing patients with severe traumatic brain injury. This case report describes a patient with a severe TBI who received prehospital 3% hypertonic saline based on an integrated protocol developed between multiple prehosptial systems and a tertiary care trauma center. Severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are a potentially catastrophic event, and morbidity can rise precipitously without early interventions to prevent hypoxia and hypotension and control for rising intracranial pressure. In recent years, hypertonic saline (HTS) has shown efficacy in lowering intracranial pressures for patients experiencing TBIs, the leading cause of death and disability among children and young adults in the United States.¹ Integrating care between health care providers across the acute care continuum, from prehospital systems to discharge, is paramount in providing the best patient outcomes possible, especially in health care system expansions such as air medical transport. The need for integrating systems of care is particularly important when managing patients with severe TBI. Statewide prehospital care protocols vary greatly; 78% provide ventilation guidance, 77.3% have targeted end-tidal carbon dioxide levels below < 35 mm Hg, and only 1 (of 38 reviewed) includes HTS (3%).² One barrier to consistency in protocol development is the available literature. One trial demonstrated that a prehospital bolus of 7.5% HTS in severe TBI did not improve mortality.³ However, the Brain Foundation guidelines continue to recommend the prehospital use of hyperosmolar therapy for patients with severe TBI and evidence of impending herniation.⁴ Hyperosmolar therapy is also recommended as an inpatient strategy for lowering increased intracranial pressure (ICP).⁴ One reason for this apparent disconnect is because the ideal timing of HTS administration and its concentration have not been determined.⁴ A meta-analysis previously determined no one prehospital fluid is superior to another in improving the outcomes of patients with severe TBI.⁵ However, none of the reviewed research investigated the continued use of HTS across an integrated system of care. This case report describes a patient with a severe TBI who received 3% HTS initiated in the prehospital setting with the infusion continued upon arrival at the trauma center using a system-wide integrated protocol.

A Brief Review of Bolus Osmotherapy Use for Managing Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries in the Pre-Hospital and Emergency Department Settings

Background: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) management begins in the pre-hospital setting, but clinicians are left with limited options for stabilisation during retrieval due to time and space constraints, as well as a lack of access to monitoring equipment. Bolus osmotherapy with hypertonic substances is commonly utilised as a temporising measure for life-threatening brain herniation, but much contention persists around its use, largely stemming from a limited evidence base. Method: The authors conducted a brief review of hypertonic substance use in patients with TBI, with a particular focus on studies involving the pre-hospital and emergency department (ED) settings. We aimed to report pragmatic information useful for clinicians involved in the early management of this patient group. Results: We reviewed the literature around the pharmacology of bolus osmotherapy, commercially available agents, potential pitfalls, supporting evidence and guideline recommendations. We further reviewed what the ideal agent is, when it should be administered, dosing and treatment endpoints and/or whether it confers meaningful long-term outcome benefits. Conclusions: There is a limited evidence-based argument in support of the implementation of bolus osmotherapy in the pre-hospital or ED settings for patients who sustain a TBI. However, decades’ worth of positive clinician experiences with osmotherapy for TBI will likely continue to drive its on-going use. Choices regarding osmotherapy will likely continue to be led by local policies, individual patient characteristics and clinician preferences.

The Optimal Dose and Concentration of Hypertonic Saline in Traumatic Brain Injury - A Systematic Review

Management of increased intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury remains challenging in neurosurgical emergencies. The mainstay of medical management for increased intracranial pressure is hyperosmolar therapy with mannitol or hypertonic saline. Mannitol has been the “gold standard” osmotic agent for almost a century. Given its wide usage, there has been a dilemma of concern because of its adverse effects. Over the past few decades, hypertonic saline has become an increasingly better alternative. To date, there is no consensus on the optimal therapeutic dose and concentration of hypertonic saline for treating increased intracranial pressure. This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol in the management of traumatic brain injury and investigate the optimal dose and concentration of hypertonic saline for the treatment. Extensive research was conducted on PubMed, DOAJ, and Cochrane databases. Studies published within the last 20 years were included. Research articles in the form of meta-analyses, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials were preferred. Those with ambiguous remarks, irrelevant correlations to the main issue, or a focus on other disorders were excluded. Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. Eleven studies have stated that hypertonic saline and mannitol were equally efficacious, whereas eight studies have reported that hypertonic saline was superior. Moreover, 3% hypertonic saline was the main concentration most discussed in research. Improvements in increased intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, survival rate, brain relaxation, and systemic hemodynamics were observed. Hypertonic saline is worthy of consideration as an excellent alternative to mannitol. This study suggests 3% hypertonic saline as the optimal concentration, with the therapeutic dose from 1.4 to 2.5 mL/kg, given as a bolus.

A teaspoon of sugar and a pinch of salt: Reviewing hyperosmolar therapy

ABSTRACT

The traditional hyperosmolar agents used to treat patients with elevated intracranial pressure are mannitol and hypertonic sodium chloride solution. This article focuses on some of the pros and cons of these treatments for managing cerebral edema.

Hypertonic Saline Compared to Mannitol for the Management of Elevated Intracranial Pressure in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis

Background: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of hypertonic saline compared to mannitol for the management of elevated intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury.

Methods: A systematic literature search up to July 2021 was performed and 17 studies included 1,392 subjects with traumatic brain injury at the start of the study; 708 of them were administered hypertonic saline and 684 were given mannitol. They were reporting relationships between the effects of hypertonic saline compared to mannitol for the management of elevated intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effect of hypertonic saline compared to mannitol for the management of elevated intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury using the dichotomous or continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model.

Results: Hypertonic saline had significantly lower treatment failure (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15–0.98, p = 0.04), lower intracranial pressure 30–60 mins after infusion termination (MD, −1.12; 95% CI, −2.11 to −0.12, p = 0.03), and higher cerebral perfusion pressure 30–60 mins after infusion termination (MD, 5.25; 95% CI, 3.59–6.91, p &lt; 0.001) compared to mannitol in subjects with traumatic brain injury.

However, hypertonic saline had no significant effect on favorable outcome (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.01–2.58, p = 0.05), mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.34–1.02, p = 0.06), intracranial pressure 90–120 mins after infusion termination (MD, −0.90; 95% CI, −3.21–1.41, p = 0.45), cerebral perfusion pressure 90–120 mins after infusion termination (MD, 4.28; 95% CI, −0.16–8.72, p = 0.06), and duration of elevated intracranial pressure per day (MD, 2.20; 95% CI, −5.44–1.05, p = 0.18) compared to mannitol in subjects with traumatic brain injury.

Conclusions: Hypertonic saline had significantly lower treatment failure, lower intracranial pressure 30–60 mins after infusion termination, and higher cerebral perfusion pressure 30–60 mins after infusion termination compared to mannitol in subjects with traumatic brain injury. However, hypertonic saline had no significant effect on the favorable outcome, mortality, intracranial pressure 90–120 mins after infusion termination, cerebral perfusion pressure 90–120 mins after infusion termination, and duration of elevated intracranial pressure per day compared to mannitol in subjects with traumatic brain injury. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

A Retrospective Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Traumatic Brain Injury: Evaluation of CONSORT Item Adherence

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) contributes to death and disability, resulting in an enormous individual and socio-economic challenges. Despite huge efforts, there are still controversies on treatment strategies and early outcome estimation. We evaluate current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TBI according to their fulfillment of the CONSORT (Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials) statement’s criteria as a marker of transparency and the quality of study planning and realization. A PubMed search for RCTs on TBI (January 2014–December 2019) was carried out. After screening of the abstracts (n = 1.926), the suitable full text manuscripts (n = 72) were assessed for the fulfillment of the CONSORT criteria. The mean ratio of consort statement fulfillment was 59% (±13%), 31% of the included studies (n = 22) complied with less than 50% of the CONSORT criteria. Citation frequency was moderately related to ratio of CONSORT item fulfillment (r = 0.4877; p < 0.0001) and citation frequency per year (r = 0.5249; p < 0.0001). The ratio of CONSORT criteria fulfillment was associated with the impact factor of the publishing journal (r = 0.6428; p < 0.0001). Essential data for study interpretation, such as sample size determination (item 7a), participant flow (item 13a) as well as losses and exclusions (item 13b), were only reported in 53%, 60% and 63%, respectively. Reporting and methodological aspects in RCTs on TBI still may be improved. Thus, the interpretation of study results may be hampered due to methodological weaknesses.

Comparison of half-molar sodium lactate and mannitol to treat brain edema in severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Hypertonic fluids such as mannitol and half-molar sodium lactate are given to treat intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). In this study, sodium lactate was compared to mannitol in patients with TBI to investigate the efficacy in reducing intracranial pressure (ICP).

METHODS

This study was a systematic review with literature research on articles published in any year in the databases of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Asian Journal of Neurosurgery, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The keywords were "half-molar sodium lactate", "mannitol", "cerebral edema or brain swelling", and "severe traumatic brain injury". The inclusion criteria were (1) studies published in English, (2) randomized control trials or retrospective/prospective studies on TBI patients, and (3) therapies including half-molar sodium lactate and mannitol and (4) sufficient data such as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR). Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

From 1499 studies, a total of 8 studies were eligible. Mannitol group reduced ICP of 0.65 times (MD 0.65; p = 0.64) and improved cerebral perfusion pressure of 0.61 times (MD 0.61; p = 0.88), better than the half-molar group of sodium lactate. But the half-molar group of sodium lactate maintained the mean arterial pressure level of 0.86 times, better than the mannitol group (MD 0.86; p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Half-molar sodium lactate is as effective as mannitol in reducing ICP in the early phase of brain injury, superior over mannitol in an extended period. It is able to prevent intracranial hypertension and give better brain tissue perfusion as well as more stable hemodynamics. Blood osmolarity is a concern as it increases serum sodium.

Effect of hypertonic saline in the management of elevated intracranial pressure in children with cerebral edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To determine the hypertonic saline efficacy in children with cerebral edema and raised intracranial pressure.

Method:

Studies assessing the efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline in children with cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure were identified using Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers independently assessed papers for inclusion. The primary outcome was a reduction of elevated intracranial pressure by the administration of hypertonic saline.

Results:

We initially evaluated 1595 potentially relevant articles, and only 7 studies met the eligibility criteria for the final analysis. Out of the seven studies, three of them were randomized controlled trials. Three of the studies found that hypertonic saline significantly reduced elevated intracranial pressure compared to control. One study reported a resolution of the comatose state as a measure of reduced intracranial pressure. It also found a significantly higher resolution of coma in the hypertonic saline group rather than the control. Three studies reported that the reduction of intracranial pressure was comparable between the groups. The random-effects model using pooled estimates from four studies showed no difference in hypertonic saline and conventional therapy mortality outcomes. Hypertonic saline was administered as bolus-only therapy at a rate of 1–10 mL/kg/dose over 5 min to 2 h and or bolus followed by infusion therapy (0.5–2 mL/kg/h). One study reported a twofold faster resolution of high intracranial pressure following hypertonic saline administration compared to controls. The re-dosing schedule varied greatly in all included studies. However, three studies reported adverse events but not methodically, and there were no reports on neurological sequelae.

Conclusion:

Hypertonic saline appears to reduce intracranial pressure in children with cerebral edema. However, we cannot draw a firm conclusion regarding the safest dose regimens of hypertonic saline, including the safe and effective therapeutic hypernatremia threshold in the management of raised intracranial pressure with cerebral edema. Future clinical trials should focus on the appropriate concentration, dose, duration, mode of administration, and adverse effects of hypertonic saline to standardize the treatment.

Hypertonic Saline Versus Mannitol for Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Mannitol and hypertonic saline are widely used to treat raised intracranial pressure (ICP) after traumatic brain injury (TBI), but the clinical superiority of one over the other has not been demonstrated.

METHODS

According to the PRISMA statement, this meta-analysis reports on randomized controlled trials investigating hypertonic saline compared with mannitol in the treatment of elevated ICP following TBI. The protocol for the literature searches (Medline, Embase, Central databases), quality assessment, endpoints (mortality, favorable outcome, brain perfusion parameters), and statistical analysis plan (including a trial sequential analysis) were prospectively specified and registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017057112).

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomized controlled trials with 464 patients were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Although there was a nonsignificant trend in favor of hypertonic saline, there were no significant differences in mortality between the 2 treatments (relative risk [RR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 1.04; P=0.08). There were also no significant differences in favorable neurological outcome between hypertonic saline (HS) and mannitol (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.90; P=0.23). There was no difference in ICP at 30 to 60 minutes after treatment (mean difference [MD]: -0.19 mm Hg, 95% CI: -0.54, 0.17; P=0.30), whereas ICP was significantly lower after HS compared with mannitol at 90 to 120 minutes (MD: -2.33 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.17, -1.50; P<0.00001). Cerebral perfusion pressure was higher between 30 to 60 and 90 to 120 minutes after treatment with HS compared with after treatment with mannitol (MD: 5.48 mm Hg, 95% CI: 4.84, 6.12; P<0.00001 and 9.08 mm Hg, 95% CI: 7.54, 10.62; P<0.00001, respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that the number of cases was insufficient to produce reliable statements on long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There are indications that HS might be superior to mannitol in the treatment of TBI-related raised ICP. However, there are insufficient data to reach a definitive conclusion, and further studies are warranted.

Escalate and De-Escalate Therapies for Intracranial Pressure Control in Traumatic Brain Injury

Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is frequently associated with an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP), followed by cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) reduction. Invasive monitoring of ICP is recommended to guide a step-by-step “staircase approach” which aims to normalize ICP values and reduce the risks of secondary damage. However, if such monitoring is not available clinical examination and radiological criteria should be used. A major concern is how to taper the therapies employed for ICP control. The aim of this manuscript is to review the criteria for escalating and withdrawing therapies in TBI patients. Each step of the staircase approach carries a risk of adverse effects related to the duration of treatment. Tapering of barbiturates should start once ICP control has been achieved for at least 24 h, although a period of 2–12 days is often required. Administration of hyperosmolar fluids should be avoided if ICP is normal. Sedation should be reduced after at least 24 h of controlled ICP to allow neurological examination. Removal of invasive ICP monitoring is suggested after 72 h of normal ICP. For patients who have undergone surgical decompression, cranioplasty represents the final step, and an earlier cranioplasty (15–90 days after decompression) seems to reduce the rate of infection, seizures, and hydrocephalus.

Equimolar doses of hypertonic agents (saline or mannitol) in the treatment of intracranial hypertension after severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS) are effective in reducing intracranial pressure (ICP) after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, their efficacy on the ICP has not been evaluated rigorously.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of repeated bolus dosing of HTS and mannitol in similar osmotic burdens to treat intracranial hypertension (ICH) in patients with severe TBI.

METHODS

The authors used an alternating treatment protocol to evaluate the efficacy of HTS with that of mannitol given for ICH episodes in patients treated for severe TBI at their hospital during 2017 to 2019. Doses of similar osmotic burdens (20% mannitol, 2 ml/kg, or 10% HTS, 0.63 ml/kg, administered as a bolus via a central venous catheter, infused over 15 minutes) were given alternately to the individual patient with severe TBI during ICH episodes. The choice of osmotic agents for the treatment of the initial ICH episode was determined on a randomized basis; osmotic agents were alternated for every subsequent ICH episode in each individual patient. intracranial pressure (ICP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) were continuously monitored between the beginning of each osmotherapy and the return of ICP to 20 mm Hg. The duration of the effect of ICP reduction (between the beginning of osmotherapy and the return of ICP to 20 mm Hg), the maximum reduction of ICP and its time was recorded after each dose. Serum sodium and plasma osmolality were measured before, 0.5 hours and 3 hours after each dose. Adverse effects such as central pontine myelinolysis (CPM), severe fluctuations of serum sodium and plasma osmolality were assessed to evaluate the safety of repeated dosing of HTS and mannitol.

RESULTS

Eighty three patients with severe TBI were assessed, including 437 ICH episodes, receiving 236 doses of HTS and 221 doses of mannitol totally. There was no significant difference between equimolar HTS and mannitol boluses on the magnitude of ICP reduction, the duration of effect, and the time to lowest ICP achieved (P > .05). The proportion of efficacious boluses was higher for HTS than for mannitol (P = .016), as was the increase in serum sodium (P = .038). The serum osmolality increased immediately after osmotherapy with a significant difference (P = .017). No cases of CPM were detected.

CONCLUSION

Repeat bolus dosing of 10% HTS and 20% mannitol appears to be significantly and similarly effective for treating ICH in patients with severe TBI. The proportion of efficacious doses of HTS on ICP reduction may be higher than mannitol.

Effects of hypertonic saline versus mannitol in patients with traumatic brain injury in prehospital, emergency department, and intensive care unit settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intracranial pressure control has long been recognized as an important requirement for patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Hypertonic saline has drawn attention as an alternative to mannitol in this setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of hypertonic saline versus mannitol on clinical outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in prehospital, emergency department, and intensive care unit settings by systematically reviewing the literature and synthesizing the evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi (ICHUSHI) Web database with no date restrictions. We selected randomized controlled trials in which the clinical outcomes of adult patients with traumatic brain injury were compared between hypertonic saline and mannitol strategies. Two investigators independently screened the search results and conducted the data extraction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were 90-day and 180-day mortality, good neurological outcomes, reduction in intracranial pressure, and serum sodium level. Random effects estimators with weights calculated by the inverse variance method were used to determine the pooled risk ratios.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients from four randomized trials were included, and all the studies were conducted in the intensive care unit. Among 105 patients from three trials that evaluated the primary outcome, 50 patients were assigned to the hypertonic saline group and 55 patients were assigned to the mannitol group. During the observation period, death was observed for 16 patients in the hypertonic saline group (32.0%) and 21 patients in the mannitol group (38.2%). The risks were not significant between the two infusion strategies (pooled risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.37). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the other secondary outcomes. However, the certainty of the evidence was rated very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rates between patients receiving hypertonic saline or mannitol to control intracranial pressure. Further investigation is warranted because we only included a limited number of studies.

Guidelines for the Acute Treatment of Cerebral Edema in Neurocritical Care Patients

BACKGROUND

Acute treatment of cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure is a common issue in patients with neurological injury. Practical recommendations regarding selection and monitoring of therapies for initial management of cerebral edema for optimal efficacy and safety are generally lacking. This guideline evaluates the role of hyperosmolar agents (mannitol, HTS), corticosteroids, and selected non-pharmacologic therapies in the acute treatment of cerebral edema. Clinicians must be able to select appropriate therapies for initial cerebral edema management based on available evidence while balancing efficacy and safety.

METHODS

The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacy to create a panel in 2017. The group generated 16 clinical questions related to initial management of cerebral edema in various neurological insults using the PICO format. A research librarian executed a comprehensive literature search through July 2018. The panel screened the identified articles for inclusion related to each specific PICO question and abstracted necessary information for pertinent publications. The panel used GRADE methodology to categorize the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the findings of each publication approximate the true effect of the therapy.

RESULTS

The panel generated recommendations regarding initial management of cerebral edema in neurocritical care patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, bacterial meningitis, and hepatic encephalopathy.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests hyperosmolar therapy may be helpful in reducing ICP elevations or cerebral edema in patients with SAH, TBI, AIS, ICH, and HE, although neurological outcomes do not appear to be affected. Corticosteroids appear to be helpful in reducing cerebral edema in patients with bacterial meningitis, but not ICH. Differences in therapeutic response and safety may exist between HTS and mannitol. The use of these agents in these critical clinical situations merits close monitoring for adverse effects. There is a dire need for high-quality research to better inform clinicians of the best options for individualized care of patients with cerebral edema.

Low-chloride- versus high-chloride-containing hypertonic solution for the treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage-related complications: The ACETatE (A low ChloriE hyperTonic solution for brain Edema) randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Recent reports have demonstrated that among patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) treated with hypertonic NaCl, resultant hyperchloremia has been associated with the development of acute kidney injury (AKI). We report a trial comparing the effect of two hypertonic solutions with different chloride contents on the resultant serum chloride concentrations in SAH patients, with a primary outcome aimed at limiting chloride elevation.

METHODS

A low ChloridE hyperTonic solution for brain Edema (ACETatE) trial is a single-center, double-blinded, double-dummy, randomized pilot trial comparing bolus infusions of 23.4% NaCl and 16.4% NaCl/Na-acetate for the treatment of cerebral edema in patients with SAH. Randomization occurred when patients developed hyperchloremia (serum Cl- ≥ 109 mmol/L) and required hyperosmolar treatment.

RESULTS

We enrolled 59 patients, of which 32 developed hyperchloremia and required hyperosmolar treatment. 15 patients were randomized to the 23.4% NaCl group, and 17 patients were randomized to the 16.4% NaCl/Na-acetate group. Although serum chloride levels increased similarly in both groups, the NaCl/Acetate group showed a significantly lower Cl- load at the end of the study period (978mEq vs. 2,464mEq, p < 0.01). Secondary outcome analysis revealed a reduced rate of AKI in the Na-acetate group (53.3% in the NaCl group vs. 11.8% in the Na-acetate group, p = 0.01). Both solutions had similar effects on ICP reduction, but NaCl/Acetate treatment had a more prominent effect on immediate post-infusion Na+ concentrations (increase of 2.2 ± 2.8 vs. 1.4 ± 2.6, (p < 0.01)). Proximal tubule renal biomarkers differed in concentration between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot trial showed the feasibility and safety of replacing 23.4% NaCl infusions with 16.4% NaCl/Na-acetate infusions to treat cerebral edema in patients with SAH. The degree of hyperchloremia was similar in the two groups. 16.4% NaCl/Na-acetate infusions led to lower Cl- load and AKI rates than 23.4% NaCl infusions. Further multi-center studies are needed to corroborate these results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03204955, registered on 6/28/2017.

Cerebral Edema in Traumatic Brain Injury: a Historical Framework for Current Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purposes of this narrative review are to (1) summarize a contemporary view of cerebral edema pathophysiology, (2) present a synopsis of current management strategies in the context of their historical roots (many of which date back multiple centuries), and (3) discuss contributions of key molecular pathways to overlapping edema endophenotypes. This may facilitate identification of important therapeutic targets.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cerebral edema and resultant intracranial hypertension are major contributors to morbidity and mortality following traumatic brain injury. Although Starling forces are physical drivers of edema based on differences in intravascular vs extracellular hydrostatic and oncotic pressures, the molecular pathophysiology underlying cerebral edema is complex and remains incompletely understood. Current management protocols are guided by intracranial pressure measurements, an imperfect proxy for cerebral edema. These include decompressive craniectomy, external ventricular drainage, hyperosmolar therapy, hypothermia, and sedation. Results of contemporary clinical trials assessing these treatments are summarized, with an emphasis on the gap between intermediate measures of edema and meaningful clinical outcomes. This is followed by a brief statement summarizing the most recent guidelines from the Brain Trauma Foundation (4th edition). While many molecular mechanisms and networks contributing to cerebral edema after TBI are still being elucidated, we highlight some promising molecular mechanism-based targets based on recent research including SUR1-TRPM4, NKCC1, AQP4, and AVP1.

SUMMARY

This review outlines the origins of our understanding of cerebral edema, chronicles the history behind many current treatment approaches, and discusses promising molecular mechanism-based targeted treatments.

Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome. Due to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.

Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the ICP. Hypertonic saline (HTS) is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of HTS compared with other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI is still debated, both in the short and the long term.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches using four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HTS versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute TBI of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long term outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled ICP (defined as failure to decrease the ICP to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events (AEs) (e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials, involving data from 295 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (89%) had a diagnosis of severe TBI. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than TBI and in one trial, there were concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one study and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two studies. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an ICP-lowering agent and one at discharge from ICU. Only three studies collected data after release from hospital. Due to variation in modes of drug administration, follow-up times, and ways of reporting changes in ICP, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled ICP', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated ICP but that HTS had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain hemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. Evidence for all outcomes is considered very low, as assessed by GRADE. All conclusions were downgraded due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of patients without TBI), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects (AEs) - a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). No data were reported on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, investigators do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on AEs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review set out to find trials comparing HTS to a potential range of other ICP-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that HTS is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute TBI. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Issues such as the type of TBI suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given should be investigated.

Hypertonic saline or mannitol for treating elevated intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hyperosmolar therapy is regarded as the mainstay for treatment of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). This still has been disputed as application of hypertonic saline (HS) or mannitol for treating patients with severe TBI. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to further compare the advantages and disadvantages of mannitol with HS for treating elevated ICP after TBI. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Wan Fang Data, VIP Data, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. Studies were included or not based on the quality assessment by the Jadad scale and selection criteria. Twelve RCTs with 438 patients were enrolled for the meta-analysis. The comparison of HS and mannitol indicated that they were close in field of improving function outcome (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.54, p = 0.258) and reducing intracranial pressure (MD = - 0.16, 95% CI: - 0.59 to 0.27, p = 0.473) and mortality (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16, p = 0.216). The pooled relative risk of successful ICP control was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.13, p = 0.044), demonstrating that HS was more effective than mannitol in ICP management. Both serum sodium (WMD = 5.30, 95% CI: 4.37 to 6.22, p < 0.001) and osmolality (WMD = 3.03, 95% CI: 0.18 to 5.88, p = 0.037) were increased after injection of hypertonic saline. The results do not lend a specific recommendation to select hypertonic saline or mannitol as a first-line for the patients with elevated ICP caused by TBI. However, for the refractory intracranial hypertension, hypertonic saline seems to be preferred.

Therapeutic hypernatremia management during continuous renal replacement therapy with elevated intracranial pressures and respiratory failure

Cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) are common complications of acute brain injury. Hypertonic solutions are routinely used in acute brain injury as effective osmotic agents to lower ICP by increasing the extracellular fluid tonicity. Acute kidney injury in a patient with traumatic brain injury and elevated ICP requiring renal replacement therapy represents a significant therapeutic challenge due to an increased risk of cerebral edema associated with intermittent conventional hemodialysis. Therefore, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has emerged as the preferred modality of therapy in this patient population. We present our current treatment approach, with demonstrative case vignette illustrations, utilizing hypertonic saline protocols (3% sodium-chloride or, with coexisting severe combined metabolic and respiratory acidosis, with 4.2% sodium-bicarbonate) in conjunction with the CRRT platform, to induce controlled hypernatremia of approximately 155 mEq/L in hemodynamically unstable patients with acute kidney injury and elevated ICP due to acute brain injury. Rationale, mechanism of activation, benefits and potential pitfalls of the therapy are reviewed. The impact of hypertonic citrate solution during regional citrate anticoagulation is specifically discussed. Maintaining plasma hypertonicity in the setting of increased ICP and acute kidney injury could prevent the worsening of ICP during renal replacement therapy by minimizing the osmotic gradient across the blood-brain barrier and maximizing cardiovascular stability.

Fluid Management in Acute Brain Injury

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The aims of fluid management in acute brain injury are to preserve or restore physiology and guarantee appropriate tissue perfusion, avoiding potential iatrogenic effects. We reviewed the literature, focusing on the clinical implications of the selected papers. Our purposes were to summarize the principles regulating the distribution of water between the intracellular, interstitial, and plasma compartments in the normal and the injured brain, and to clarify how these principles could guide fluid administration, with special reference to intracranial pressure control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a considerable amount of research has been published on this topic and in general on fluid management in acute illness, the quality of the evidence tends to vary. Intravascular volume management should aim for euvolemia. There is evidence of harm with aggressive administration of fluid aimed at achieving hypervolemia in cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Isotonic crystalloids should be the preferred agents for volume replacement, while colloids, glucose-containing hypotonic solutions, and other hypotonic solutions or albumin should be avoided. Osmotherapy seems to be effective in intracranial hypertension management; however, there is no clear evidence regarding the superiority of hypertonic saline over mannitol. Fluid therapy plays an important role in the management of acute brain injury patients. However, fluids are a double-edged weapon because of the potential risk of hyper-hydration, hypo- or hyper-osmolar conditions, which may unfavorably affect the clinical course and the outcome.

A Retrospective Study of Intracranial Pressure in Head-Injured Patients Undergoing Decompressive Craniectomy: A Comparison of Hypertonic Saline and Mannitol

Objective: The impact of hypertonic saline (HTS) on the control of increased intracranial pressure (ICP) in head-injured patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy (DC) has yet to be established. The current retrospective study was conducted to compare the effect of HTS and mannitol on lowering the ICP burden of these patients.

Methods: We reviewed data on patients who had sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and were admitted to the First People's Hospital of Kunshan between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2017. Patients who received only one type of hyperosmotic agent, 3% HTS or 20% mannitol, after DC were included. The daily ICP burden (h/day) and response to the hyperosmolar agent were used as primary outcome measures. The numbers of days in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, and the 2-weeks mortality rates were also compared between the groups.

Results: The 30 patients who received 3% HTS only and the 30 who received 20% mannitol only were identified for approximate matching and additional data analyses. The demographic characteristics of the patients in the two groups were comparable, but the daily ICP burden was significantly lower in the HTS group than in the mannitol group (0.89 ± 1.02 h/day vs. 2.11 ± 2.95 h/day, respectively; P = 0.038). The slope of the reduction in ICP in response to a bolus dose at baseline was higher with HTS than with mannitol (P = 0.001). However, the between-group difference in the 2-weeks mortality rates was not statistically significant (2 [HTS] vs. 1 [mannitol]; P = 0.554).

Conclusion: When used in equiosmolar doses, the reduction in the ICP of TBI patients achieved with 3% HTS was superior to that achieved with 20% mannitol after DC. However, this advantage did not seem to confer any additional benefit terms of short-term mortality.

Therapeutic effect of intensive glycemic control therapy in patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is associated with dismal outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is frequently treated with insulin therapy. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of intensive glycemic control (IGC) versus conventional glycemic control (CGC) for patients following TBI.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochran database, were retrieved up to January 2018. The outcomes evaluated in this study included mortality, neurological outcome, infection rate, hypoglycemia episode, and length of stay (LOS) in intensive care unit (ICU). The enrolled trials were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1013 cases were enrolled in this study, and the results indicated no significant difference in 6-month mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.10; P = .34). Subsequently, IGC was associated with a better neurological outcome (RR, 1.22; 95% CI 1.05-1.43; P = .01), lower infection rate (RR, 0.65; 95% CI 0.51-0.82; P = .0003) and shorter LOS in ICU (mean difference [MD] = -1.37; 95%CI = -2.11, -0.63; P = .0003). In addition, IGC would also increase the risk of hypoglycemia episode (RR, 4.53; 95% CI 2.18-9.42; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

IGC plays a protective role in improving neurological outcome, decreasing infection rate and reducing the LOS in ICU. However, IGC therapy can also remarkably increase the risk of hypoglycemia, but it will not affect the mortality in TBI patients.

A Comparison of Pharmacologic Therapeutic Agents Used for the Reduction of Intracranial Pressure After Traumatic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

In neurotrauma care, a better understanding of treatments after traumatic brain injury (TBI) has led to a significant decrease in morbidity and mortality in this population. TBI represents a significant medical problem, and complications after TBI are associated with the initial injury and postevent intracranial processes such as increased intracranial pressure and brain edema. Consequently, appropriate therapeutic interventions are required to reduce brain tissue damage and improve cerebral perfusion. We present a contemporary review of literature on the use of pharmacologic therapies to reduce intracranial pressure after TBI and a comparison of their efficacy.

METHODS

This review was conducted by PubMed query. Only studies discussing pharmacologic management of patients after TBI were included. This review includes prospective and retrospective studies and includes randomized controlled trials as well as cohort, case-control, observational, and database studies. Systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, and studies that considered conditions other than TBI or pediatric populations were not included.

RESULTS

Review of the literature describing the current pharmacologic treatment for intracranial hypertension after TBI most often discussed the use of hyperosmolar agents such as hypertonic saline and mannitol, sedatives such as fentanyl and propofol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates. Hypertonic saline is associated with faster resolution of intracranial hypertension and restoration of optimal cerebral hemodynamics, although these advantages did not translate into long-term benefits in morbidity or mortality. In patients refractory to treatment with hyperosmolar therapy, induction of a barbiturate coma can reduce intracranial pressure, although requires close monitoring to prevent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that the use of hypertonic saline after TBI is the best option for immediate decrease in intracranial pressure. A better understanding of the efficacy of each treatment option can help to direct treatment algorithms during the critical early hours of trauma care and continue to improve morbidity and mortality after TBI.