Introduction
Experimental research has demonstrated that the level of neuroprotection conferred by the various barbiturates is not equal. Until now no controlled studies have been conducted to compare their effectiveness, even though the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines recommend that such studies be undertaken. The objectives of the present study were to assess the effectiveness of pentobarbital and thiopental in terms of controlling refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury, and to evaluate the adverse effects of treatment.
Methods
This was a prospective, randomized, cohort study comparing two treatments: pentobarbital and thiopental. Patients who had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score after resuscitation ≤ 8 points or neurological deterioration during the first week after trauma) and with refractory intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure > 20 mmHg) first-tier measures, in accordance with the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines.
Results
A total of 44 patients (22 in each group) were included over a 5-year period. There were no statistically significant differences in ' baseline characteristics, except for admission computed cranial tomography characteristics, using the Traumatic Coma Data Bank classification. Uncontrollable intracranial pressure occurred in 11 patients (50%) in the thiopental treatment group and in 18 patients (82%) in the pentobarbital group (
P
= 0.03). Under logistic regression analysis – undertaken in an effort to adjust for the cranial tomography characteristics, which were unfavourable for pentobarbital – thiopental was more effective than pentobarbital in terms of controlling intracranial pressure (odds ratio = 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 21.9;
P
= 0.027). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the incidence of arterial hypotension or infection.
Conclusions
Thiopental appeared to be more effective than pentobarbital in controlling intracranial hypertension refractory to first-tier measures. These findings should be interpreted with caution because of the imbalance in cranial tomography characteristics and the different dosages employed in the two arms of the study. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups.
Trial Registration
(Trial registration: US Clinical Trials registry NCT00622570.)
Background: Hypoxemia is the most frequent complication of fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB) in children. Guidelines recommend oxygen supplementation and conventional nasal prongs (NC) are used for this purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the use of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) in children undergoing FB result in a lower incidence of hypoxemia than standard oxygen administration.Methods: Patients aged 1 month-16 years undergoing elective FB were included in a prospective randomized controlled, nonblinded, single-center clinical trial and randomly assigned to receive oxygen via NC or HFNC. Patients' baseline characteristics were recorded pre-bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was oxygen desaturation during the procedure defined as saturation less than 94%.Results: An intention to treat analysis for 53 patients receiving NC and 51 receiving HFNC, showed HFNC patients were less likely to have hypoxemia than were NC patients (p = .011), with an absolute risk reduction of 0.27 (95% confidence interval[CI]: 0.08-0.45) and a number needed to treat of 3.75 (95% CI: 2.22-12.04).Moderate hypoxemia (SpO 2 ≥ 90% and <94%, and <60 s) was observed significantly less often with HFNC than with NC (p = .012). Severe hypoxemia (SpO 2 < 90% and >30 s) was not different between groups. Patients undergoing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) presented fewer desaturations with HFNC (p = .0003).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.