Is Decompressive Craniectomy Better than Standard Care Alone for Increased Intracranial Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Mulhem ◽  
Amrita Singh Jaiswal ◽  
Abdul Masih Alsulaiman ◽  
Kaspar Lewis Yaxley ◽  
Karolina Wartolowska
BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e016194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Koziarz ◽  
Niv Sne ◽  
Fraser Kegel ◽  
Waleed Alhazzani ◽  
Siddharth Nath ◽  
...  

IntroductionIncreased intracranial pressure (ICP) is a significant neurological issue that may lead to permanent neurological sequelae. When evaluating patients with traumatic brain injury, it is crucial to identify those with high ICP in order to expedite ICP lowering measures and maintain adequate cerebral perfusion. Several measures are used to recognise patients with increased ICP including CT scan, MRI, ICP monitor, and lumbar puncture (LP). However, these tests can be invasive, associated with radiation exposure, contraindicated, or not readily available. Ultrasonography measurement of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) is proposed as a non-invasive and quick measure to identify high ICP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be to examine the accuracy of ONSD sonography for increased ICP diagnosis.Methods and analysesWe will include published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, observational studies, and abstracts, with no publication type or language restrictions. Search strategies will be designed to peruse the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, WHO Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases. We will also implement strategies to search grey literature. Two reviewers will independently complete data abstraction and conduct quality assessment. Included studies will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We will construct the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve for included studies and pool sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate model. We also plan to conduct prespecified subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence will be rated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics board approval is not required for this study as it draws from published data and raises no concerns related to patient privacy. This review will provide a comprehensive assessment of the evidence on ONSD sonography diagnostic accuracy and is directed to a wide audience. Results from the review will be disseminated extensively through conferences and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017055485.Clinical trial numberTrial registration number isNCT00783809.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110197
Author(s):  
Moosa Azadian ◽  
Suyee Win ◽  
Amir Abdipour ◽  
Carolyn Krystal Kim ◽  
H. Bryant Nguyen

Background: Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. Results: We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Conclusion: Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Morgado Areia ◽  
Christopher Biggs ◽  
Mauro Santos ◽  
Neal Thurley ◽  
Stephen Gerry ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Timely recognition of the deteriorating inpatient remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMS) may augment current monitoring practices. However, there are many challenges to implementation in the hospital environment, and evidence describing the clinical impact of AMS on deterioration detection and patient outcome remains unclear. Objective: To assess the impact of vital signs monitoring on detection of deterioration and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients using ambulatory monitoring systems, in comparison with standard care.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in August 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and Health Technology Assessment databases, as well as grey literature. Studies comparing the use of AMS against standard care for deterioration detection and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients were included. Deterioration related outcomes (primary) included unplanned intensive care admissions, rapid response team or cardiac arrest activation, total and major complications rate. Other clinical outcomes (secondary) included in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Exploratory outcomes included alerting system parameters and clinical trial registry information. Results: Of 8706 citations, 10 studies with different designs met the inclusion criteria, of which 7 were included in the meta-analyses. Overall study quality was moderate. The meta-analysis indicated that the AMS, when compared with standard care, was associated with a reduction in intensive care transfers (risk ratio, RR, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.66 to 1.15), rapid response or cardiac arrest team activation (RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01), total (RR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.32) and major (RR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.30) complications prevalence. There was also association with reduced mortality (RR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, MD, -0.09; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.44). However, none were statistically significant.Conclusion: This systematic review indicates that implementation of AMS may have a positive impact on early deterioration detection and associated clinical outcomes, but differing design/quality of available studies and diversity of outcomes measures limits a definite conclusion. Our narrative findings suggested that alarms should be adjusted to minimise false alerts and promote rapid clinical action in response to deterioration.PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020188633


2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Eun Kim ◽  
Eun Pyo Hong ◽  
Heung Cheol Kim ◽  
Si Un Lee ◽  
Jin Pyeong Jeon

Background The optimal optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) cut-off for identifying increased intracranial pressure (IICP) remains unclear in adult patients. Purpose To validate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonographic (US) ONSD > 5.0 mm as a cut-off for detecting IICP by computed tomographic (CT) through a meta-analysis. Material and Methods A systemic literature review was performed of online databases from January 1990 to September 2017. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) graph was used to provide summary points for sensitivity and specificity. Meta-regression tests were performed to estimate the influence of the study characteristics on DOR. Publication bias was assessed using Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. Results Six studies with 352 patients were included in the meta-analysis. US ONSD > 5.0 mm revealed pooled sensitivity of 99% (95% CI = 96–100) and specificity of 73% (95% CI = 65–80) for IICP detection. DOR was 178. The area under the SROC curve was 0.981, indicating a good level of accuracy. Meta-regression studies showed no significant associations between DOR and study characteristics such as probe mode (relative DOR [RDOR] = 0.60; P = 0.78), study quality (RDOR = 0.52; P = 0.67), IICP prevalence (RDOR = 0.04; P = 0.17), or pathology at admission (RDOR = 1.30; P = 0.87). Conclusion US ONSD > 5.0 mm can be used to rapidly detect IICP in adults in emergency departments and intensive care units. Further meta-analysis based on individual patient-level databases is needed to confirm these results.


BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reed AC Siemieniuk ◽  
Jessica J Bartoszko ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Dena Zeraatkar ◽  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2020 and six additional Chinese databases up to 12 November 2020. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 85 trials enrolling 41 669 patients met inclusion criteria as of 21 October 2020; 50 (58.8%) trials and 25 081 (60.2%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 43 (50.6%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 34 fewer to 1 more, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (29 fewer per 1000 patients, 54 fewer to 1 more, moderate certainty), and days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 fewer, 0.2 fewer to 5.0 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and duration of symptoms is uncertain, but it probably does not substantially increase adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (0 more per 1000, 9 fewer to 40 more, moderate certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either. Whether or not remdesivir confers any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is included as a supplement. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is the second update of the original article published on 30 July 2020 ( BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document