-
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2016Rhabdomyolysis is a clinical syndrome that comprises destruction of skeletal muscle with outflow of intracellular muscle content into the bloodstream. There is a great... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rhabdomyolysis is a clinical syndrome that comprises destruction of skeletal muscle with outflow of intracellular muscle content into the bloodstream. There is a great heterogeneity in the literature regarding definition, epidemiology, and treatment. The aim of this systematic literature review was to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the epidemiologic data, definition, and management of rhabdomyolysis.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using the keywords "rhabdomyolysis" and "crush syndrome" covering all articles from January 2006 to December 2015 in three databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect). The search was divided into two steps: first, all articles that included data regarding definition, pathophysiology, and diagnosis were identified, excluding only case reports; then articles of original research with humans that reported epidemiological data (e.g., risk factors, common etiologies, and mortality) or treatment of rhabdomyolysis were identified. Information was summarized and organized based on these topics.
RESULTS
The search generated 5632 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 164 articles were retrieved and read: 56 articles met the final inclusion criteria; 23 were reviews (narrative or systematic); 16 were original articles containing epidemiological data; and six contained treatment specifications for patients with rhabdomyolysis.
CONCLUSION
Most studies defined rhabdomyolysis based on creatine kinase values five times above the upper limit of normal. Etiologies differ among the adult and pediatric populations and no randomized controlled trials have been done to compare intravenous fluid therapy alone versus intravenous fluid therapy with bicarbonate and/or mannitol.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Crush Injuries; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Ischemia; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscular Diseases; Physical Exertion; Rhabdomyolysis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27301374
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1314-5 -
Medicine Aug 2020To compare the effects of 3% hypertonic saline solution and 20% mannitol solution on intracranial hypertension. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the effects of 3% hypertonic saline solution and 20% mannitol solution on intracranial hypertension.
METHODS
WAN-FANGDATA, CNKI, and CQVIP databases were searched, and relevant literatures of randomized controlled trials comparing 3% hypertonic saline solution with mannitol in reducing intracranial hypertension from 2010 to October 2019 were collected. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software.
RESULTS
As a result, 10 articles that met the inclusion criteria were finally included. A total of 544 patients were enrolled in the study, 270 in the hypertonic saline group and 274 in the mannitol group. There was no significant difference in the decrease of intracranial pressure and the onset time of drug between the 2 groups after intervention (all P > .05). There was a statistically significant difference between the hypertonic saline group and the mannitol group in terms of duration of effect in reducing intracranial pressure (95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.05, Z = 8.09, P < .00001) and cerebral perfusion pressure after intervention (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.92, Z = 2.72, P = .007).
CONCLUSION
Both 3% hypertonic saline and mannitol can effectively reduce intracranial pressure, but 3% hypertonic saline has a more sustained effect on intracranial pressure and can effectively increase cerebral perfusion pressure.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Diuretics, Osmotic; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Mannitol; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 32871879
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021655 -
Nutrients Jul 2021Under stress conditions, the metabolic demand for nutrients increases, which, if not met, may slow down or indeed stop the wound from healing, thus, becoming chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Under stress conditions, the metabolic demand for nutrients increases, which, if not met, may slow down or indeed stop the wound from healing, thus, becoming chronic wounds. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of arginine and glutamine supplementation on wound healing. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for the systematic review and ten electronic databases were used. Five and 39 human studies met the inclusion criteria for arginine and glutamine, respectively. The overall meta-analysis demonstrated a significant effect of arginine supplementation on hydroxyproline content (MD: 4.49, 95% CI: 3.54, 4.45, < 0.00001). Regarding glutamine supplementation, there was significant effect on nitrogen balance levels (MD: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.58, < 0.0001), IL-6 levels (MD: -5.78, 95% CI: -8.71, -2.86, = 0.0001), TNFα levels (MD: -8.15, 95% CI: -9.34, -6.96, < 0.00001), lactulose/mannitol (L/M) ratio (MD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, -0.01, < 0.00001), patient mortality (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.72, = 0.0004), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (MD: -1.10, 95% CI: -1.26, -0.93, < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (LOS) (MD: -2.65, 95% CI: -3.10, -2.21, < 0.00001). Regarding T-cell lymphocytes, a slight decrease was observed, although it failed to reach significance (MD: -0.16, 95% CI: -0.33, 0.01, = 0.07). Conclusion: The wound healing might be enhanced in one or at various stages by nutritional supplementation in the right dose.
Topics: Arginine; Dietary Supplements; Glutamine; Humans; Length of Stay; Nutritional Status; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 34444657
DOI: 10.3390/nu13082498 -
The Oncologist May 2017Cisplatin, a platinum-based antineoplastic agent, is the cornerstone for the treatment of many malignancies. Nephrotoxicity is the primary dose-limiting toxicity, and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cisplatin, a platinum-based antineoplastic agent, is the cornerstone for the treatment of many malignancies. Nephrotoxicity is the primary dose-limiting toxicity, and various hydration regimens and supplementation strategies are used to prevent cisplatin-induced kidney injury. However, evidence-based recommendations on specific hydration regimens are limited. A systematic review was performed to evaluate clinical studies that have examined hydration and supplementation strategies to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and Excerpta Medica databases were searched from 1966 through October 2015 for clinical trials and other studies focused on hydration regimens to prevent nephrotoxicity in cancer patients treated with cisplatin. The University of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria were used to grade level of evidence.
RESULTS
Among the 1,407 identified studies, 24 were included in this systematic review. All studies differed on type, volume, and duration of hydration. Among the 24 studies, 5 evaluated short-duration hydration, 4 evaluated low-volume hydration, 4 investigated magnesium supplementation, and 7 reviewed forced diuresis with hydration. Short-duration and lower-volume hydration regimens are effective in preventing cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Magnesium supplementation may have a role as a nephroprotectant, and forced diuresis may be appropriate in some patients receiving cisplatin.
CONCLUSION
Hydration is essential for all patients to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Specifically, short-duration, low-volume, outpatient hydration with magnesium supplementation and mannitol forced diuresis (in select patients) represent best practice principles for the safe use of cisplatin. 2017;22:609-619 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings contained within this systematic review show that (a) hydration is essential for all patients to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, (b) short-duration, low-volume, outpatient hydration regimens appear to be safe and feasible, even in patients receiving intermediate- to high-dose cisplatin, (c) magnesium supplementation (8-16 milliequivalents) may limit cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, and (d) mannitol may be considered for high-dose cisplatin and/or patients with preexisting hypertension. These findings have broad implications for clinical practice and represent best practice principles for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Kidney; Male; Neoplasms
PubMed: 28438887
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0319 -
European Journal of Medical Research Nov 2022Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes mortality and long-term disability among young adults and imposes a notable cost on the healthcare system. In addition to the first... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes mortality and long-term disability among young adults and imposes a notable cost on the healthcare system. In addition to the first physical hit, secondary injury, which is associated with increased intracranial pressure (ICP), is defined as biochemical, cellular, and physiological changes after the physical injury. Mannitol and Hypertonic saline (HTS) are the treatment bases for elevated ICP in TBI. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of HTS in the management of patients with TBI.
METHODS
This study was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods and PRISMA statement. A systematic search was performed through six databases in February 2022, to find studies that evaluated the effects of HTS, on increased ICP. Meta-analysis was performed using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA).
RESULTS
Out of 1321 results, 8 studies were included in the systematic review, and 3 of them were included in the quantitative synthesis. The results of the meta-analysis reached a 35.9% (95% CI 15.0-56.9) reduction in ICP in TBI patients receiving HTS, with no significant risk of publication bias (t-value = 0.38, df = 2, p-value = 0.73). The most common source of bias in our included studies was the transparency of blinding methods for both patients and outcome assessors.
CONCLUSION
HTS can significantly reduce the ICP, which may prevent secondary injury. Also, based on the available evidence, HTS has relatively similar efficacy to Mannitol, which is considered the gold standard therapy for TBI, in boosting patients' neurological condition and reducing mortality rates.
Topics: Humans; Young Adult; Intracranial Pressure; Brain Injuries; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Intracranial Hypertension; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Mannitol
PubMed: 36404350
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00897-4 -
Journal of Neurosurgery May 2021Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has led to a paradigm shift in perioperative care through multimodal interventions. Still, ERAS remains a relatively new concept... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has led to a paradigm shift in perioperative care through multimodal interventions. Still, ERAS remains a relatively new concept in neurosurgery, and there is no summary of evidence on ERAS applications in cranial neurosurgery.
METHODS
The authors systematically reviewed the literature using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for ERAS protocols and elements. Studies had to assess at least one pre-, peri-, or postoperative ERAS element and evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: 1) length of hospital stay, 2) length of ICU stay, 3) postoperative pain, 4) direct and indirect healthcare cost, 5) complication rate, 6) readmission rate, or 7) patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
A final 27 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, with mixed quality of evidence ranging from high in 3 cases to very low in 1 case. Seventeen studies reported a complete ERAS protocol. Preoperative ERAS elements include patient selection through multidisciplinary team discussion, patient counseling and education to adjust expectations of the postoperative period, and mental state assessment; antimicrobial, steroidal, and antiepileptic prophylaxes; nutritional assessment, as well as preoperative oral carbohydrate loading; and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis. Anesthesiology interventions included local anesthesia for pin sites, regional field block or scalp block, avoidance or minimization of the duration of invasive monitoring, and limitation of intraoperative mannitol. Other intraoperative elements include absorbable skin sutures and avoidance of wound drains. Postoperatively, the authors identified early extubation, observation in a step-down unit instead of routine ICU admission, early mobilization, early fluid de-escalation, early intake of solid food and liquids, early removal of invasive monitoring, professional nutritional assessment, PONV management, nonopioid rescue analgesia, and early postoperative imaging. Other postoperative interventions included discharge criteria standardization and home visits or progress monitoring by a nurse.
CONCLUSIONS
A wide range of evidence-based interventions are available to improve recovery after elective craniotomy, although there are few published ERAS protocols. Patient-centered optimization of neurosurgical care spanning the pre-, intra-, and postoperative periods is feasible and has already provided positive results in terms of improved outcomes such as postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, reduced length of stay, and cost reduction with an excellent safety profile. Although fast-track recovery protocols and ERAS studies are gaining momentum for elective craniotomy, prospective trials are needed to provide stronger evidence.
PubMed: 33962374
DOI: 10.3171/2020.10.JNS203160 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.
PubMed: 37496824
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S410592 -
Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology Jan 2021Mannitol and hypertonic saline are widely used to treat raised intracranial pressure (ICP) after traumatic brain injury (TBI), but the clinical superiority of one over... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mannitol and hypertonic saline are widely used to treat raised intracranial pressure (ICP) after traumatic brain injury (TBI), but the clinical superiority of one over the other has not been demonstrated.
METHODS
According to the PRISMA statement, this meta-analysis reports on randomized controlled trials investigating hypertonic saline compared with mannitol in the treatment of elevated ICP following TBI. The protocol for the literature searches (Medline, Embase, Central databases), quality assessment, endpoints (mortality, favorable outcome, brain perfusion parameters), and statistical analysis plan (including a trial sequential analysis) were prospectively specified and registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017057112).
RESULTS
A total of 12 randomized controlled trials with 464 patients were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Although there was a nonsignificant trend in favor of hypertonic saline, there were no significant differences in mortality between the 2 treatments (relative risk [RR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 1.04; P=0.08). There were also no significant differences in favorable neurological outcome between hypertonic saline (HS) and mannitol (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.90; P=0.23). There was no difference in ICP at 30 to 60 minutes after treatment (mean difference [MD]: -0.19 mm Hg, 95% CI: -0.54, 0.17; P=0.30), whereas ICP was significantly lower after HS compared with mannitol at 90 to 120 minutes (MD: -2.33 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.17, -1.50; P<0.00001). Cerebral perfusion pressure was higher between 30 to 60 and 90 to 120 minutes after treatment with HS compared with after treatment with mannitol (MD: 5.48 mm Hg, 95% CI: 4.84, 6.12; P<0.00001 and 9.08 mm Hg, 95% CI: 7.54, 10.62; P<0.00001, respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that the number of cases was insufficient to produce reliable statements on long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
There are indications that HS might be superior to mannitol in the treatment of TBI-related raised ICP. However, there are insufficient data to reach a definitive conclusion, and further studies are warranted.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Diuretics, Osmotic; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Mannitol; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 31567726
DOI: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000644 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome. Due to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Glasgow Outcome Scale; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 31978260
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010904.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation, etc.) and a set of first-line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol, etc.). When these measures fail, second-line therapies are initiated, which include: barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia, or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (secondary decompressive craniectomy).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcomes of patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP.
SEARCH METHODS
The most recent search was run on 8 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S). We also searched trials registries and contacted experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with severe TBI who either underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments or received standard care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected potentially relevant studies from the search results, and obtained study reports. Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials (590 participants). One single-site trial included 27 children; another multicenter trial (three countries) recruited 155 adults, the third trial was conducted in 24 countries, and recruited 408 adolescents and adults. Each study compared DC combined with standard care (this could include induced barbiturate coma or cooling of the brain, or both). All trials measured outcomes up to six months after injury; one also measured outcomes at 12 and 24 months (the latter data remain unpublished). All trials were at a high risk of bias for the criterion of performance bias, as neither participants nor personnel could be blinded to these interventions. The pediatric trial was at a high risk of selection bias and stopped early; another trial was at risk of bias because of atypical inclusion criteria and a change to the primary outcome after it had started. Mortality: pooled results for three studies provided moderate quality evidence that risk of death at six months was slightly reduced with DC (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.01; 3 studies, 571 participants; I = 38%; moderate-quality evidence), and one study also showed a clear reduction in risk of death at 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Neurological outcome: conscious of controversy around the traditional dichotomization of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scale, we chose to present results in three ways, in order to contextualize factors relevant to clinical/patient decision-making. First, we present results of death in combination with vegetative status, versus other outcomes. Two studies reported results at six months for 544 participants. One employed a lower ICP threshold than the other studies, and showed an increase in the risk of death/vegetative state for the DC group. The other study used a more conventional ICP threshold, and results favoured the DC group (15.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR) (95% CI 6% to 25%). The number needed to treat for one beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. to avoid death or vegetative status) was seven. The pooled result for DC compared with standard care showed no clear benefit for either group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.13; 2 studies, 544 participants; I = 86%; low-quality evidence). One study reported data for this outcome at 12 months, when the risk for death or vegetative state was clearly reduced by DC compared with medical treatment (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Second, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' evaluated on a non-traditional dichotomized GOS-Extended scale (GOS-E), that is, grouping the category 'upper severe disability' into the 'good outcome' grouping. Data were available for two studies (n = 571). Pooling indicated little difference between DC and standard care regarding the risk of an unfavorable outcome at six months following injury (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.63; 544 participants); heterogeneity was high, with an I value of 82%. One trial reported data at 12 months and indicated a clear benefit of DC (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; 373 participants). Third, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' using the (traditional) dichotomized GOS/GOS-E cutoff into 'favorable' versus 'unfavorable' results. There was little difference between DC and standard care at six months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 3 studies, 571 participants; low-quality evidence), and heterogeneity was high (I = 78%). At 12 months one trial suggested a similar finding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). With regard to ICP reduction, pooled results for two studies provided moderate quality evidence that DC was superior to standard care for reducing ICP within 48 hours (MD -4.66 mmHg, 95% CI -6.86 to -2.45; 2 studies, 182 participants; I = 0%). Data from the third study were consistent with these, but could not be pooled. Data on adverse events are difficult to interpret, as mortality and complications are high, and it can be difficult to distinguish between treatment-related adverse events and the natural evolution of the condition. In general, there was low-quality evidence that surgical patients experienced a higher risk of adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Decompressive craniectomy holds promise of reduced mortality, but the effects of long-term neurological outcome remain controversial, and involve an examination of the priorities of participants and their families. Future research should focus on identifying clinical and neuroimaging characteristics to identify those patients who would survive with an acceptable quality of life; the best timing for DC; the most appropriate surgical techniques; and whether some synergistic treatments used with DC might improve patient outcomes.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Decompressive Craniectomy; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31887790
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003983.pub3