Loyal Pattuwage

Review article: Prehospital fluid management in traumatic brain injury

The early management of patients who have sustained traumatic brain injury is aimed at preventing secondary brain injury through avoidance of cerebral hypoxia and hypoperfusion. Especially in hypotensive patients, it has been postulated that hypertonic crystalloids and colloids might support mean arterial pressure more effectively by expanding intravascular volume without causing problematic cerebral oedema. We conducted a systematic review to investigate if hypertonic saline or colloids result in better outcomes than isotonic crystalloid solutions, as well as to determine the safety of minimal volume resuscitation, or delayed versus immediate fluid resuscitation during prehospital care for patients with traumatic brain injury. We identified nine randomized controlled trials and one cohort study examined the effects of hypertonic solutions (with or without colloid added) for prehospital fluid resuscitation. None has reported better survival and functional outcomes over the use of isotonic crystalloids. The only trial of restrictive resuscitation strategies was underpowered to demonstrate its safety compared with aggressive early fluid resuscitation in head injured patients, and maintenance of cerebral perfusion remains the top priority.

Quality of guidelines for cognitive rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury.

Introduction:Cognitive rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury can aid in optimizing function, independence, and quality of life by addressing impairments in attention, executive function, cognitive communication, and memory. This study aimed to identify and evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for cognitive rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury. Methods:Systematic searching of databases and Web sites was undertaken between January and March 2012 to identify freely available, English language clinical practice guidelines from 2002 onward. Eligible guidelines were evaluated using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Results:The 11 guidelines that met inclusion criteria were independently rated by 4 raters. Results of quality appraisal indicated that guidelines generally employed systematic search and appraisal methods and produced unambiguous, clearly identifiable recommendations. Conversely, only 1 guideline incorporated implementation and audit information, and there was poor reporting of processes for formulating, reviewing, and ensuring currency of recommendations and incorporating patient preferences. Intraclass correlation coefficients for agreement between raters showed high agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.80) for all guidelines except for 1 (moderate agreement; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.76). Conclusion:Future guidelines should address identified limitations by providing implementation information and audit criteria, along with better reporting of guideline development processes and stakeholder engagement.

Searches for evidence mapping: effective, shorter, cheaper.

An evidence map is an overview of a broad research field that describes the volume, nature, and characteristics of research in that field [1]. Evidence maps can indicate research links, gaps, and strengths in a broad clinical context, while systematic reviews focus on a single clinical question [2, 3]. Maps complement systematic reviews by engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize questions that may be informed by research evidence, highlighting the applicability of research evidence to different populations and contexts, and identifying important gaps that can inform further primary research or systematic reviews [3]. Evidence mapping can be a labor-intensive process, as it must provide an overview of the nature and characteristics of all research in any given field (Figure 1, online only). There are many more potentially useful references to review when mapping a topic area than when answering a specific clinical question, as in a systematic review. The searching challenges for evidence mapping are similar to those of a rapid review, which also needs to produce high-quality evidence with reduced resources. In the case of the rapid review, the time needed is limited [4]. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was funded in 2007 by the Victorian Neurotrauma Initiative (Australia) to map the research addressing important questions about treatments, diagnostic tests, prognosis, and cost effectiveness in the broad clinical areas of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI). The project involved identifying the scope of clinical issues in pre-hospital, acute, and rehabilitation (long-term care) for TBI and SCI; identifying key questions in the area; and developing evidence maps to support strategic allocation of research funds. Although a number of sources, including, but not confined to, electronic databases [5, 6], were routinely checked as part of this project, this paper describes an evaluation of just the electronic database-searching procedures and methodologies that were developed to populate the evidence maps. Pragmatic changes to otherwise rigorous and accepted procedures were done only after consideration of time and benefit. At the end of the project, a newly developed evidence mapping search method was compared with highly sensitive systematic review searches using PubMed MEDLINE as the test searching platform. The evaluation of the effectiveness of these two methods was based on the following parameters: yield, sensitivity, time requirements, and resource use.

Pharmacological interventions in traumatic brain injury: Can we rely on systematic reviews for evidence?

INTRODUCTION Providing current, reliable and evidence based information for clinicians and researchers in a synthesised and summarised way can be challenging particularly in the area of traumatic brain injury where a vast number of reviews exists. These reviews vary in their methodological quality and are scattered across varying sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews that evaluate the pharmacological interventions in traumatic brain injury (TBI). By doing this, we aim to evaluate the existing evidence for improved outcomes in TBI with pharmacological interventions, and to identify gaps in the literature to inform future research. METHODS We searched the Neurotrauma Evidence Map on systematic reviews relating to pharmacological interventions for managing TBI in acute phase. Two reviewers independently screened search results and appraised each systematic review using the validated AMSTAR tool and extracted data from the review. RESULTS A total of 288 systematic reviews relating to TBI were available on the Neurotrauma Evidence Map at the time of this study. We identified 19 systematic reviews on pharmacological management for acute TBI with publications dates ranging from 1998 to 2014. The studies were of varying methodological quality, with a mean AMSTAR score of 7.78 (range 2-11]. CONCLUSION The evidence from high quality systematic reviews show that there is currently insufficient evidence for the use of magnesium, monoaminergic and dopamine agonists, progesterone, aminosteroids, excitatory amino acid inhibitors, haemostatic and antifibrinolytic drugs in TBI. Anti-convulsants are only effective in reducing early seizures with no significant difference between phenytoin and leviteracetam. There is no difference between propofol and midazolam for sedation in TBI patients and ketamine may not cause increased ICP. Overviews of systematic review provide informative and powerful summaries of evidence based research.

Non-surgical interventions for the management of type 2 dens fractures: a systematic review

Non‐surgical immobilization strategies for type 2 odontoid fractures vary considerably, with some surgeons preferring rigid collars, halothoracic bracing or the Minerva brace. Choice of device should be informed by the effectiveness in achieving union, whilst minimizing mortality and complications.

Safety and efficacy of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis following blunt head injury: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND Patients with blunt head injury are at high risk of venous thromboembolism. However, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (PTP) may cause progression of intracranial hemorrhage, and clinicians must often weigh up the risks and benefits. This review aimed to determine whether adding PTP to mechanical prophylaxis confers net benefit or harm and the optimal timing, dose, and agent for PTP in patients with blunt head injury. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and www.clinicaltrials.gov on April 24, 2013, to identify controlled studies and ongoing trials that assessed the efficacy or safety of thromboprophylaxis interventions in the early management of head-injured patients. Studies were classified based on types of interventions and comparisons, and the quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We intended to undertake a meta-analysis if studies were sufficiently similar. RESULTS Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including four randomized controlled trials. At least two randomized controlled trials were at high risk of bias owing to inadequate randomization and concealment of allocation, and observational studies were potentially confounded by substantial differences between comparison groups. Heterogeneity of included studies precluded meta-analysis. Results were mixed, with some studies supporting and others refuting addition of PTP to mechanical interventions. Little evidence was available about dose or choice of agent. The safety and efficacy of early PTP in patients without early progression of hemorrhage is unclear. CONCLUSION There is currently insufficient evidence to guide thromboprophylaxis in patients with blunt head injury. Standardized definitions and outcome measurements would facilitate comparison of outcomes across future studies. Studies in mixed populations should report head-injured specific subgroup data. Future randomized controlled trials should investigate the efficacy and safety of early pharmacologic prophylaxis in addition to mechanical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review, level IV.

Management of Spasticity in Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Introduction: Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) can result in development of spasticity, which adversely affects function and quality of life. Given the foundation of optimal clinical practice is use of the best available evidence, we aimed to identify, describe, and evaluate methodological quality of evidence-based spasticity clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: A comprehensive search for CPGs encompassed electronic databases and online sources. Eligible CPGs were evaluated using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results: Five CPGs were eligible for review; 2 were specific to acquired brain injury and 1 to TBI. The 3 brain injury-specific CPGs contained 423 recommendations overall, but only 8 spasticity recommendations. On the basis of AGREE appraisals, all CPGs performed well in the areas of reporting scope and purpose; clearly presenting recommendations; including various stakeholders in the CPG development process; and reporting conflict of interest. However, only one CPG performed adequately on describing facilitators and barriers to implementation, advice, and tools on how to implement recommendations and provision of audit criteria. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for agreement between raters showed high agreement (ICC > 0.80) for most guidelines. Conclusion: Given the unique etiological features and treatment challenges associated with managing spasticity after TBI, more TBI-specific spasticity CPGs are required. These should incorporate information on the facilitators and barriers to implementation, advice on implementing recommendations, and audit criteria.

The experience of discharge for patients with an acquired brain injury from the inpatient to the community setting: A qualitative review

Abstract Background: Discharge planning for patients with an acquired brain injury (ABI) is considered best practice for assisting the patient and caregiver to successfully transition from hospital to home and is complex because of the long-term care and support needs of the patient. This review aimed to describe and synthesize the perspectives of patients with ABI and their family/caregivers on the transition from hospital to home to better understand opportunities to optimize the process. Methods: Electronic medical databases (n = 5) and grey literature published between January–May 2015 were searched to identify qualitative studies on the experience of transition from the hospital to home setting following ABI. Relevant studies were appraised and narratively synthesized. Results: Nine eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. Two major themes were identified—Engagement and Support. Three underlying sub-themes—poor communication, limited participation and disorganized arrangements for support services—were identified as key contributors to an unsatisfactory experience for patients and their family/caregivers. Conclusion: The transition for patients with an ABI and their family/caregivers was characterized as fragmented and unsatisfactory for supporting a successful return home. This review highlights the importance of tailored education and involvement of the patient and their family/caregiver to increase readiness for returning home and reduce unplanned re-admissions.

The currency, completeness and quality of systematic reviews of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A comprehensive evidence map

Objective To appraise the currency, completeness and quality of evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2016 for published, English-language SRs and RCTs of acute management of moderate to severe TBI. Systematic reviews and RCTs were grouped under 12 broad intervention categories. For each review, we mapped the included and non-included RCTs, noting the reasons why RCTs were omitted. An SR was judged as ‘current’ when it included the most recently published RCT we found on their topic, and ‘complete’ when it included every RCT we found that met its inclusion criteria, taking account of when the review was conducted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist (trichotomised into low, moderate and high quality). Findings We included 85 SRs and 213 RCTs examining the effectiveness of treatments for acute management of moderate to severe TBI. The most frequently reviewed interventions were hypothermia (n = 17, 14.2%), hypertonic saline and/or mannitol (n = 9, 7.5%) and surgery (n = 8, 6.7%). Of the 80 single-intervention SRs, approximately half (n = 44, 55%) were judged as current and two-thirds (n = 52, 65.0%) as complete. When considering only the most recently published review on each intervention (n = 25), currency increased to 72.0% (n = 18). Less than half of the 85 SRs were judged as high quality (n = 38, 44.7%), and nearly 20% were low quality (n = 16, 18.8%). Only 16 (20.0%) of the single-intervention reviews (and none of the five multi-intervention reviews) were judged as current, complete and high-quality. These included reviews of red blood cell transfusion, hypothermia, management guided by intracranial pressure, pharmacological agents (various) and prehospital intubation. Over three-quarters (n = 167, 78.4%) of the 213 RCTs were included in one or more SR. Of the remainder, 17 (8.0%) RCTs post-dated or were out of scope of existing SRs, and 29 (13.6%) were on interventions that have not been assessed in SRs. Conclusion A substantial number of SRs in acute management of moderate to severe TBI lack currency, completeness and quality. We have identified both potential evidence gaps and also substantial research waste. Novel review methods, such as Living Systematic Reviews, may ameliorate these shortcomings and enhance utility and reliability of the evidence underpinning clinical care.