Long-Term Effect of Decompressive Craniectomy on Intracranial Pressure and Possible Implications for Intracranial Fluid Movements

BACKGROUND

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is used in cases of severe intracranial hypertension or impending intracranial herniation. DC effectively lowers intracranial pressure (ICP) but carries a risk of severe complications related to abnormal ICP and/or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulation, eg, hygroma formation, hydrocephalus, and "syndrome of the trephined."

OBJECTIVE

To study the long-term effect of DC on ICP, postural ICP regulation, and intracranial pulse wave amplitude (PWA).

METHODS

Prospective observational study including patients undergoing DC during a 12-mo period. Telemetric ICP sensors (Neurovent-P-tel; Raumedic, Helmbrechts, Germany) were implanted in all patients. Following discharge from the neuro intensive care unit (NICU), scheduled weekly ICP monitoring sessions were performed during the rehabilitation phase.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients (traumatic brain injury: 7, stroke: 9) were included (median age: 55 yr, range: 19-71 yr). Median time from NICU discharge to cranioplasty was 48 d (range: 16-98 d) and during this period, mean ICP gradually decreased from 7.8 ± 2.0 mm Hg to -1.8 ± 3.3 mm Hg (P = .02). The most pronounced decrease occurred during the first month. Normal postural ICP change was abolished after DC for the entire follow-up period, ie, there was no difference between ICP in supine and sitting position (P = .67). PWA was markedly reduced and decreased from initially 1.2 ± 0.7 mm Hg to 0.4 ± 0.3 mm Hg (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Following NICU discharge, ICP decreases to negative values within 4 wk, normal postural ICP regulation is lost and intracranial PWA is diminished significantly. These abnormalities might have implications for intracranial fluid movements (eg, CSF and/or glymphatic flow) following DC and warrants further investigations.

Intracranial pressure before and after cranioplasty: insights into intracranial physiology

OBJECTIVE

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an emergency neurosurgical procedure used in cases of severe intracranial hypertension or impending intracranial herniation. The procedure is often lifesaving, but it exposes the brain to atmospheric pressure in the subsequent rehabilitation period, which changes intracranial physiology and probably leads to complications such as hydrocephalus, hygromas, and "syndrome of the trephined." The objective of the study was to study the effect of cranioplasty on intracranial pressure (ICP), postural ICP changes, and intracranial pulse wave amplitude (PWA).

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective observational study including patients who underwent DC during a 12-month period. Telemetric ICP sensors were implanted in all patients at the time of DC. ICP was evaluated before and after cranioplasty during weekly measurement sessions including a standardized postural change program.

RESULTS

Twelve of the 17 patients enrolled in the study had cranioplasty performed and were included in the present investigation. Their mean ICP in the supine position increased from -0.5 ± 4.8 mm Hg the week before cranioplasty to 6.3 ± 2.5 mm Hg the week after cranioplasty (p < 0.0001), whereas the mean ICP in the sitting position was unchanged (-1.2 ± 4.8 vs -1.1 ± 3.6 mm Hg, p = 0.90). The difference in ICP between the supine and sitting positions was minimal before cranioplasty (1.1 ± 1.8 mm Hg) and increased to 7.4 ± 3.6 mm Hg in the week following cranioplasty (p < 0.0001). During the succeeding 2 weeks of the follow-up period, the mean ICP in the supine and sitting positions decreased in parallel to, respectively, 4.6 ± 3.0 mm Hg (p = 0.0003) and -3.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg (p = 0.040), meaning that the postural ICP difference remained constant at around 8 mm Hg. The mean intracranial PWA increased from 0.7 ± 0.7 mm Hg to 2.9 ± 0.8 mm Hg after cranioplasty (p < 0.0001) and remained around 3 mm Hg throughout the following weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Cranioplasty restores normal intracranial physiology regarding postural ICP changes and intracranial PWA. These findings complement those of previous investigations on cerebral blood flow and cerebral metabolism in patients after decompressive craniectomy.

Ketamine for critically ill patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Intensive care for patients with severe acute brain injury aims both to treat the immediate consequences of the injury and to prevent and treat secondary brain injury to ensure a good functional outcome. Sedation may be used to facilitate mechanical ventilation, for treating agitation, and for controlling intracranial pressure. Ketamine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist with sedative, analgesic, and potentially neuroprotective properties. We describe a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of ketamine for patients with severe acute brain injury.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically search international databases for randomised clinical trials, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries. Two authors will independently review and select trials for inclusion, and extract data. We will compare ketamine by any regimen versus placebo, no intervention, or other sedatives or analgesics for patients with severe acute brain injury. The primary outcomes will be functional outcome at maximal follow up, quality of life, and serious adverse events. We will also assess secondary and exploratory outcomes. The extracted data will be analysed using Review Manager and Trials Sequential Analysis. Evidence certainty will be graded using GRADE.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.

PROSPERO NO

CRD42021210447.

Ketamine for Critically Ill Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe acute brain injury have a high risk of a poor clinical outcome due to primary and secondary brain injury. Ketamine reportedly inhibits cortical spreading depolarization, an electrophysiological phenomenon that has been associated with secondary brain injury, making ketamine potentially attractive for patients with severe acute brain injury. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the current literature regarding ketamine for patients with severe acute brain injury.

METHODS

We systematically searched international databases for randomized clinical trials comparing ketamine by any regimen versus placebo, no intervention, or any control drug for patients with severe acute brain injury. Two authors independently reviewed and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and performed analysis using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with an unfavorable functional outcome, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and quality of life.

RESULTS

We identified five randomized trials comparing ketamine versus sufentanil, fentanyl, other sedatives, or saline (total N = 149 participants). All outcomes were at overall high risk of bias. The proportions of participants with one or more serious adverse events did not differ between ketamine and sufentanil or fentanyl (relative risk 1.45, 95% confidence interval 0.81-2.58; very low certainty). Trial sequential analysis showed that further trials are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of evidence regarding the effects of ketamine on functional outcome and serious adverse events in patients with severe acute brain injury is very low. Ketamine may markedly, modestly, or not at all affect these outcomes. Large randomized clinical trials at low risk of bias are needed.