Devastating brain injuries (DBIs) profoundly damage cerebral function and frequently cause death. DBI survivors admitted to critical care will suffer both intracranial and extracranial effects from their brain injury. The indicators of quality care in DBI are not completely defined, and despite best efforts many patients will not survive, although others may have better outcomes than originally anticipated. Inaccuracies in prognostication can result in premature termination of life support, thereby biasing outcomes research and creating a self-fulfilling cycle where the predicted course is almost invariably dismal. Because of the potential complexities and controversies involved in the management of devastating brain injury, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a panel of expert clinicians from neurocritical care, neuroanesthesia, neurology, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, nursing, and pharmacy to develop an evidence-based guideline with practice recommendations. The panel intends for this guideline to be used by critical care physicians, neurologists, emergency physicians, and other health professionals, with specific emphasis on management during the first 72-h post-injury. Following an extensive literature review, the panel used the GRADE methodology to evaluate the robustness of the data. They made actionable recommendations based on the quality of evidence, as well as on considerations of risk: benefit ratios, cost, and user preference. The panel generated recommendations regarding prognostication, psychosocial issues, and ethical considerations.

Background Among cardiac arrest survivors, about half remain comatose 72 h following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Prognostication of poor neurological outcome in this population may result in withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and death. The objective of this article is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling surrogates of comatose cardiac arrest survivors. Methods A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, which included clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of evidence. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: “When counseling surrogates of comatose adult survivors of cardiac arrest, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of poor functional outcome assessed at 3 months or later?” Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower-quality studies. Following construction of the evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format. Results Eleven candidate clinical variables and three prediction models were selected based on clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of literature. A total of 72 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. Good practice recommendations include waiting 72 h following ROSC/rewarming prior to neuroprognostication, avoiding sedation or other confounders, the use of multimodal assessment, and an extended period of observation for awakening in patients with an indeterminate prognosis, if consistent with goals of care. The bilateral absence of pupillary light response > 72 h from ROSC and the bilateral absence of N20 response on somatosensory evoked potential testing were identified as reliable predictors. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain > 48 h from ROSC and electroencephalography > 72 h from ROSC were identified as moderately reliable predictors. Conclusions These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of poor outcome in the context of counseling surrogates of comatose survivors of cardiac arrest and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered reliable or moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) often carries a favorable prognosis. Of adult patients with GBS, 10–30% require mechanical ventilation during the acute phase of the disease. After the acute phase, the focus shifts to restoration of motor strength, ambulation, and neurological function, with variable speed and degree of recovery. The objective of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling adult patients with GBS and/or their surrogates. Methods A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and presence of appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Time frame/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: “When counseling patients or surrogates of critically ill patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome, with time frame of assessment]?” Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower quality studies. Following construction of an evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format. Results Eight candidate clinical variables and six prediction models were selected. A total of 45 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. We recommend bulbar weakness (the degree of motor weakness at disease nadir) and the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score as moderately reliable for prediction of the need for mechanical ventilation. The Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (EGOS) and modified EGOS were identified as moderately reliable predictors of independent ambulation at 3 months and beyond. Good practice recommendations include consideration of both acute and recovery phases of the disease during prognostication, discussion of the possible need for mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition during counseling, and consideration of the complete clinical condition as opposed to a single variable during prognostication. Conclusions These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of the need for mechanical ventilation, poor functional outcome, and independent ambulation following GBS in the context of counseling patients and/or surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence, and higher quality data are needed.