Sedation for critically ill adults with severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials*

Background Most deaths following severe traumatic brain injury follow decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapies. However, the incidence of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and its potential impact on research data interpretation have been poorly characterized. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and the impact of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in randomized clinical trials of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, BIOSIS, and CINAHL databases and references of included trials. All randomized controlled trials published between January 2002 and August 2015 in the six highest impact journals in general medicine, critical care medicine, and neurocritical care (total of 18 journals) were considered for eligibility. Randomized controlled trials were included if they enrolled adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8) and reported data on mortality. Our primary objective was to assess the proportion of trials reporting the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in a publication. Our secondary objectives were to describe the overall mortality rate, the proportion of deaths following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, and to assess the impact of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies on trial results. Results From 5987 citations retrieved, we included 41 randomized trials (n = 16,364, ranging from 11 to 10,008 patients). Overall mortality was 23% (range = 3%–57%). Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies was reported in 20% of trials (8/41, 932 patients in trials) and the crude number of deaths due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies was reported in 17% of trials (7/41, 884 patients in trials). In these trials, 63% of deaths were associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (105/168). An analysis carried out by imputing a 4% differential rate in instances of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies between study groups yielded different results and conclusions in one third of the trials. Conclusion Data on the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies are incompletely reported in randomized controlled trials of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Given the high proportion of deaths due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in severe traumatic brain injury patients, and the potential of this medical decision to influence the results of clinical trials, instances of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies should be systematically reported in clinical trials in this group of patients.

Download Full-text

Hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

CJEM ◽

10.1017/cem.2016.12 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 112-120 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Elyse Berger-Pelleiter ◽

Marcel Émond ◽

François Lauzier ◽

Jean-François Shields ◽

Alexis F. Turgeon

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Traumatic Brain Injury ◽

Brain Injury ◽

Intracranial Pressure ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Hypertonic Saline ◽

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomized Controlled

AbstractObjectivesHypertonic saline solutions are increasingly used to treat increased intracranial pressure following severe traumatic brain injury. However, whether hypertonic saline provides superior management of intracranial pressure and improves outcome is unclear. We thus conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of hypertonic saline in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.MethodsTwo researchers independently selected randomized controlled trials studying hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury and collected data using a standardized abstraction form. No language restriction was applied. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and BIOSIS databases. We searched grey literature via OpenGrey and National Technical Information Service databases. We searched the references of included studies and relevant reviews for additional studies.ResultsEleven studies (1,820 patients) were included. Hypertonic saline did not decrease mortality (risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.11, I2=0%) or improve intracranial pressure control (weighted mean difference −1.25 mm Hg, 95% CI −4.18 to 1.68, I2=78%) as compared to any other solutions. Only one study reported monitoring for adverse events with hypertonic saline, finding no significant differences between comparison groups.ConclusionsWe observed no mortality benefit or effect on the control of intracranial pressure with the use of hypertonic saline when compared to other solutions. Based on the current level of evidence pertaining to mortality or control of intracranial pressure, hypertonic saline could thus not be recommended as a first-line agent for managing patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

Download Full-text

Hypophosphataemia in Critically Ill Adults and Children – A Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-48985/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Annika Reintam Blaser ◽

Jan Gunst ◽

Carole Ichai ◽

Michael Casaer ◽

Carina Benstoem ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Adults And Children ◽

Research Questions ◽

Critically Ill Adults ◽

Ill Adults

Abstract Background: Phosphate is the main intracellular anion essential for numerous biological processes. Symptoms of hypophosphataemia are non-specific, yet potentially life-threatening. This systematic review process was initiated to gain a global insight into hypophosphataemia, associated morbidity and treatments. Methods: A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO CRD42020163191). Nine clinically relevant questions were generated, seven for adult and two for paediatric critically ill patients, and prevalence of hypophosphataemia was assessed in both of these groups. We identified trials through systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.Results: For all research questions, we identified 2727 titles in total, assessed 399 full texts, and retained 82 full texts for evidence synthesis, with 20 of them identified for several research questions. Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified with two of them published only in abstract form, as well as 28 prospective and 31 retrospective studies, and 20 case reports. Relevant risk of bias regarding selection and comparability was identified for most of the studies. No meta-analysis could be performed. The prevalence of hypophosphataemia varied substantially in critically ill adults and children, but no study assessed consecutive admissions to intensive care.In both critically ill adults and children, several studies report that hypophosphataemia is associated with worse outcome (prolonged length of stay and the need for respiratory support, and higher mortality). However, there was insufficient evidence regarding the optimal threshold upon which hypophosphataemia becomes critical and requires treatment. We found no studies regarding the optimal frequency of phosphate measurements, and regarding the time window to correct hypophosphataemia. In adults, nutrient restriction on top of phosphate repletion in patients with refeeding syndrome may improve survival, although evidence is weak. Conclusion: Evidence on the definition, outcome and treatment of clinically relevant hypophosphataemia in critically ill adults and children is scarce and does not allow answering clinically relevant questions. High quality clinical research is crucial for the development of respective guidelines.

Download Full-text