Survey of management of severe head injury in Canada

Low-dose levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a lower dose of levetiracetam (500 mg every 12 hours) to prevent early seizures after traumatic brain injury (TBI). It was hypothesized that the seizure rate would be low and comparable to previous studies using phenytoin.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary care, academic institution that is designated as a level 1 trauma centre in the US. Consecutive patients with TBI were evaluated. Patients who were given a levetiracetam dose of 500 mg every 12 hours were included. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a seizure within 7 days of TBI.

RESULTS

There were a total of 169 patients included in the study, who were treated with levetiracetam 500 mg every 12 hours. The median time to first dose of levetiracetam was 3.5 hours after injury (interquartile range = 1-13 hours). After initiation of levetiracetam, there were four (2.4%) patients who had a seizure within 7 days. This was not significantly different than the hypothesized population value of 3.6% (p = 0.390).

CONCLUSIONS

A lower dose of levetiracetam 500 mg every 12 hours after TBI may be effective for early seizure prevention after TBI.

A Critical Look at Phenytoin Use for Early Post-Traumatic Seizure Prophylaxis

Backround:

The American Academy of Neurology recommended using phenytoin or carbamazepine to prevent early post-traumatic seizures (PTS) in severe traumatic brain injuries (TBI). In this study, we examined the effects of using phenytoin prophylaxis on mild, moderate, and severe TBIs. There have been no studies looking at compliance rate and side effects of systematic use of phenytoin at a large population scale. The goal of this study is to determine 1) the proportion of TBI patients receiving phenytoin prophylaxis; 2) which parameters decided when to decide administer phenytoin; 3) prophylaxis efficacy and complication rate.

Methods:

We retrospectively studied all patients admitted with a TBI over a two year-period and collected the following information: age, GCS score, CT-scan Marshall grade, incidence of early PTS, incidence of phenytoin use and time delay, side effects, and incidence of over-dosage or under-dosage.

Results:

1008 patients were included. 5.4 % had early PTS, 2.3 % while on prophylaxis and 3.1% while not on prophylaxis, 1.9% before reaching the hospital and 1.2% prior to phenytoin administration while in hospital. Delay of administration was 5 hours. 64.8% received prophylaxis and physicians used positive CT scan as the primary decision-making parameter (p<.001). Compliance with guidelines was 99.7%. Adverse reactions occurred in 0.5%. Levels were drawn in 42.2% (52% therapeutic, 41% low, 7% high).

Conclusions:

Phenytoin is used according to guidelines, with CT scan being the main decision factor for its use. The frequency of early PTS rate is low and side effects are rare. However, earlier administration of phenytoin and adequate levels could further prevent early PTS.

Monitoring and sedation differences in the management of severe head injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage among neurocritical care centers

BACKGROUND

The emergence of specialized neurocritical care (NCC) centers has been associated with an improved survival of patients with severe traumatic brain injury or subarachnoid hemorrhage. However, there are no established guidelines on sedation strategy or the frequency of evaluating the level of consciousness using the neurological wake-up test (NWT) in sedated NCC patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to compare the (1) monitoring techniques, (2) sedation principles, and (3) the use of the NWT in patients with severe traumatic brain injury or subarachnoid hemorrhage in 16 NCC centers.

METHOD

A systematic survey of all 16 centers providing NCC in Scandinavia was performed using a questionnaire regarding the routine primary choice of sedative and analgesic compounds, monitoring techniques, and the frequency of the NWT, sent to the director of each center during 1999, 2004, and 2009.

RESULTS

The response rate was 100%. Except for one center in 1999, all included centers routinely used monitoring of intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressure. In contrast, newer monitoring techniques such as microdialysis, jugular bulb oximetry, and brain tissue oxygenation were infrequently used throughout the survey period. Approximately half of the NCC centers used propofol infusion as the primary sedative, whereas the remaining centers used midazolam infusion, and there was a marked variation in the choice of analgesia in each evaluated year. The NWT was never used in 50% of centers and ≥six times daily in one center from 1999 to 2009. Most differences among the NCC centers remained unchanged over the evaluated 10-year period.

DISCUSSION

Although Scandinavian countries have similar healthcare systems, there were marked differences among the participating NCC centers in the choice of monitoring tools and sedatives and the routine use of the NWT. These differences likely reflect different clinical management traditions and a lack of evidence-based guidelines in routine NCC.

Hyperosmolar therapy in severe traumatic brain injury: a survey of emergency physicians from a large Canadian province

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, severe traumatic brain injury is a frequent pathology and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mannitol and hypertonic saline are therapeutic options for intracranial hypertension occurring in the acute phase of care. However, current practices of emergency physicians are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a self-administered survey of emergency physicians in the province of Québec, Canada, to understand their attitudes surrounding the use of hyperosmolar solutions in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Using information from a systematic review of hypertonic saline solutions and experts' opinion, we developed a questionnaire following a systematic approach (items generation and reduction). We tested the questionnaire for face and content validity, and test-retest reliability. Physicians were identified through the department head of each eligible level I and II trauma centers. We administered the survey using a web-based interface and planned email reminders.

RESULTS

We received 210 questionnaires out of 429 potentials respondents (response rate 49%). Most respondents worked in level II trauma centers (69%). Fifty-three percent (53%) of emergency physicians stated using hypertonic saline to treat severe traumatic brain injury. Most reported using hyperosmolar therapy in the presence of severe traumatic brain injury and unilateral reactive mydriasis, midline shift or cistern compression on brain computed tomography.

CONCLUSION

Hyperosmolar therapy is believed being broadly used by emergency physicians in Quebec following severe traumatic brain injury. Despite the absence of clinical practice guidelines promoting the use of hypertonic saline, a majority of them said to use these solutions in specific clinical situations.

More harm than good: antiseizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury does not decrease seizure rates but may inhibit functional recovery

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study were to examine the current Brain Trauma Foundation recommendation for antiseizure prophylaxis with phenytoin during the first 7 days after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in preventing seizures and to determine if this medication affects functional recovery at discharge.

METHODS

The records of adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients with blunt severe TBI who remained in the hospital at least 7 days after injury were retrospectively reviewed from January 2008 to January 2010. Clinical seizure rates during the first 7 days after injury and functional outcome at discharge were compared for the two groups based on antiseizure prophylaxis, no prophylaxis (NP) versus phenytoin prophylaxis (PP). Statistical analysis was performed using χ2.

RESULTS

A total of 93 adult patients who met the previously mentioned criteria were identified (43 [46%] NP group vs. 50 [54%] PP group). The two groups were well matched. Contrary to expectation, more seizures occurred in the PP group as compared with the NP group; however, this did not reach significance (PP vs. NP, 2 [4%] vs. 1 [2.3%], p = 1). There was no significant difference in the two groups (PP vs. NP) as far as disposition are concerned, mortality caused by head injury (4 [8%] vs. 3 [7%], p = 1), discharge home (16 [32%] vs. 17 [40%], p = 0.7), and discharge to rehabilitation (30 [60%] vs. 23 [53%], p = 0.9). However, with PP, there was a significantly longer hospital stay (PP vs. NP, 36 vs. 25 days, p = 0.04) and significantly worse functional outcome at discharge based on Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score (PP vs. NP, 2.9 vs. 3.4, p < 0.01) and modified Rankin Scale score (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 3.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

PP may not decrease early posttraumatic seizure and may suppress functional outcome after blunt TBI. These results need to be verified with randomized studies before recommending changes in clinical practice and do not apply to penetrating trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV; epidemiologic study, level III.

Severe head injury: clinicians' awareness of the literature

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the awareness of the literature concerning therapeutic manoeuvres in severe closed head injury (CHI) among Canadian critical care clinicians and neurosurgeons, 2. To identify factors that affect utilization of these manoeuvres, and 3. To compare reported appropriateness and frequency of use with #1 and #2.

METHODS

The study design was a systematic scenario-based survey of all neurosurgeons and critical care physicians treating patients with severe CHI in Canada.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine of 99 neurosurgeons and 82 of 148 critical care physicians responded (57%). The majority of respondents were not able to identify the highest level of published evidence for most manoeuvres, except for the avoidance of corticosteroids (51%). The factor identified by most respondents as being most important in motivating use of any given manoeuvres was the level of published evidence (25%). Although reported appropriateness and frequency of use of most manoeuvres correlated well with each other, they did not correlate with awareness of evidence. In the case of corticosteroids, there was a strong correlation between non-use of steroids and awareness of evidence (R = -0.30, p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents to this survey of Canadian physicians treating patients with severe head injury reported published evidence as being the most significant factor affecting use of a therapy. However, most respondents did not correctly identify the highest published level of evidence for most therapies. This study has identified difficulty with research translation that may have clinical implications.