No abstract

Background Acute treatment of cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure is a common issue in patients with neurological injury. Practical recommendations regarding selection and monitoring of therapies for initial management of cerebral edema for optimal efficacy and safety are generally lacking. This guideline evaluates the role of hyperosmolar agents (mannitol, HTS), corticosteroids, and selected non-pharmacologic therapies in the acute treatment of cerebral edema. Clinicians must be able to select appropriate therapies for initial cerebral edema management based on available evidence while balancing efficacy and safety. Methods The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacy to create a panel in 2017. The group generated 16 clinical questions related to initial management of cerebral edema in various neurological insults using the PICO format. A research librarian executed a comprehensive literature search through July 2018. The panel screened the identified articles for inclusion related to each specific PICO question and abstracted necessary information for pertinent publications. The panel used GRADE methodology to categorize the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the findings of each publication approximate the true effect of the therapy. Results The panel generated recommendations regarding initial management of cerebral edema in neurocritical care patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, bacterial meningitis, and hepatic encephalopathy. Conclusion The available evidence suggests hyperosmolar therapy may be helpful in reducing ICP elevations or cerebral edema in patients with SAH, TBI, AIS, ICH, and HE, although neurological outcomes do not appear to be affected. Corticosteroids appear to be helpful in reducing cerebral edema in patients with bacterial meningitis, but not ICH. Differences in therapeutic response and safety may exist between HTS and mannitol. The use of these agents in these critical clinical situations merits close monitoring for adverse effects. There is a dire need for high-quality research to better inform clinicians of the best options for individualized care of patients with cerebral edema.

No abstract

Sepsis and severe sepsis in particular remain a major health problem worldwide. Their cost to society extends well beyond lives lost, as the impact of survivorship is increasingly felt. A review of the medical literature was completed in MEDLINE using the search phrases "severe sepsis" and "septic shock" and the MeSH terms "epidemiology", "statistics", "mortality", "economics", and "quality of life". Results were limited to human trials that were published in English from 2002 to 2014. Articles were classified by dominant themes to address epidemiology and outcomes, including quality of life of both patient and family caregivers, as well as societal costs. The severity of sepsis is determined by the number of organ failures and the presence of shock. In most developed countries, severe sepsis and septic shock account for disproportionate mortality and resource utilization. Although mortality rates have decreased, overall mortality continues to increase and is projected to accelerate as people live longer with more chronic illness. Among those who do survive, impaired quality of life, increased dependence, and rehospitalization increase healthcare consumption and, along with increased mortality, all contribute to the humanistic burden of severe sepsis. A large part of the economic burden of severe sepsis occurs after discharge. Initial inpatient costs represent only 30 % of the total cost and are related to severity and length of stay, whereas lost productivity and other indirect medical costs following hospitalization account for the majority of the economic burden of sepsis. Timeliness of treatment as well as avoidance of intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired illness/morbidity lead to important differences in both cost and outcome of treatment for severe sepsis and represent areas where improvement in care is possible. The degree of sophistication of a health system from a national perspective results in significant differences in resource use and outcomes for patients with serious infections. Comprehensive understanding of the cost and humanistic burden of severe sepsis provides an initial practical framework for health policy development and resource use.

When brain-dead patients who are suitable organ donors are mistakenly identified as having cerebral activity, the diagnosis of brain death is delayed. This delay impacts resource utilization, impedes recovery and function of organs for donation, and adversely affects donor families, potential recipients of organs, and patient donors who may have testing and treatment that cannot be beneficial. Patients with catastrophic brain injury and absent cranial nerve function should undergo immediate formal apnea testing.

Physiologic variables assessing cardiac performance (SVI) and preload responsiveness (SVV) provide simple yet meaningful targets when one is determining the best approach for volume management in critically ill patients undergoing dialysis.

Using a 15-cm insertion depth via the internal jugular or subclavian vein results in safe catheter tip location in the majority of procedures consistent with FDA and manufacturer guidelines.

Pulmonary artery catheterization has been a routine part of care for critically ill patients over the past 25 years. Primary hemodynamic data regarding cardiac output and pulmonary pressures can be utilized to make diagnoses and guide therapy. Tissue oxygen delivery and utilization allow inferences about the efficiency of the cardiopulmonary system and the impact of disease and medical therapies on tissue metabolism. Goals of high level invasive monitoring of cardiopulmonary function with pulmonary artery catheterization are organ salvage and minimizing complications associated with critical illness. Optimizing renal perfusion and minimizing pulmonary congestion with precise volume titration are common reasons for performing pulmonary artery catheterization in the intensive care unit. Despite being reassuring to clinicians that hemodynamic therapy is optimal, multiple data from well conducted clinical studies have not demonstrated outcome benefits to patients related to pulmonary artery catheterization. Less invasive techniques to obtain data regarding hemodynamic function are now entering the clinical arena and are being actively investigated.