-
Journal of Anesthesia Oct 2020Intracranial hypertension (IH) is a clinical condition commonly encountered in the intensive care unit, which requires immediate treatment. The maintenance of normal... (Review)
Review
Intracranial hypertension (IH) is a clinical condition commonly encountered in the intensive care unit, which requires immediate treatment. The maintenance of normal intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure in order to prevent secondary brain injury (SBI) is the central focus of management. SBI can be detected through clinical examination and invasive and non-invasive ICP monitoring. Progress in monitoring and understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of IH allows the implementation of targeted interventions in order to improve the outcome of these patients. Initially, general prophylactic measures such as patient's head elevation, fever control, adequate analgesia and sedation depth should be applied immediately to all patients with suspected IH. Based on specific indications and conditions, surgical resection of mass lesions and cerebrospinal fluid drainage should be considered as an initial treatment for lowering ICP. Hyperosmolar therapy (mannitol or hypertonic saline) represents the cornerstone of medical treatment of acute IH while hyperventilation should be limited to emergency management of life-threatening raised ICP. Therapeutic hypothermia could have a possible benefit on outcome. To control elevated ICP refractory to maximum standard medical and surgical treatment, at first, high-dose barbiturate administration and then decompressive craniectomy as a last step are recommended with unclear and probable benefit on outcomes, respectively. The therapeutic strategy should be based on a staircase approach and be individualized for each patient. Since most therapeutic interventions have an uncertain effect on neurological outcome and mortality, future research should focus on both studying the long-term benefits of current strategies and developing new ones.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Mannitol; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 32440802
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-020-02795-7 -
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 -
Journal of Neurotrauma Jul 2023Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is one of the most important modifiable and immediate threats to critically ill patients suffering from traumatic brain injury...
Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is one of the most important modifiable and immediate threats to critically ill patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Two hyperosmolar agents (HOAs), mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS), are routinely used in clinical practice to treat increased ICP. We aimed to assess whether a preference for mannitol, HTS, or their combined use translated into differences in outcome. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study is a prospective multi-center cohort study. For this study, patients with TBI, admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), treated with mannitol and/or HTS, and aged ≥16 years were included. Patients and centers were differentiated based on treatment preference with mannitol and/or HTS based on structured, data-driven criteria such as first administered HOA in the ICU. We assessed influence of center and patient characteristics in the choice of agent using adjusted multi-variate models. Further, we assessed the influence of HOA preference on outcome using adjusted ordinal and logistic regression models, and instrumental variable analyses. In total, 2056 patients were assessed. Of these, 502 (24%) patients received mannitol and/or HTS in the ICU. The first received HOA was HTS for 287 (57%) patients, mannitol for 149 (30%) patients, or both mannitol and HTS on the same day for 66 (13%) patients. Two unreactive pupils were more common in patients receiving both (13, 21%), compared with patients receiving HTS (40, 14%) or mannitol (22, 16%). Center, rather than patient characteristics, was independently associated with the preferred choice of HOA (-value <0.05). ICU mortality and 6-month outcome were similar between patients preferably treated with mannitol compared with HTS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.0, confidence interval [CI] = 0.4-2.2; OR = 0.9, CI = 0.5-1.6, respectively). Patients who received both also had a similar ICU mortality and 6-month outcome compared with patients receiving HTS (OR = 1.8, CI = 0.7-5.0; OR = 0.6, CI = 0.3-1.7, respectively). We found between-center variability regarding HOA preference. Moreover, we found that center is a more important driver of the choice of HOA than patient characteristics. However, our study indicates that this variability is an acceptable practice given absence of differences in outcomes associated with a specific HOA.
Topics: Humans; Mannitol; Cohort Studies; Prospective Studies; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure
PubMed: 37014076
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2022.0465 -
Pediatric Nephrology (Berlin, Germany) Apr 2023Serum osmolality is the sum of the osmolalities of every single dissolved particle in the blood such as sodium and associated anions, potassium, glucose, and urea. Under... (Review)
Review
Serum osmolality is the sum of the osmolalities of every single dissolved particle in the blood such as sodium and associated anions, potassium, glucose, and urea. Under normal conditions, serum sodium concentration is the major determinant of serum osmolality. Effective blood osmolality, so-called blood tonicity, is created by the endogenous (e.g., sodium and glucose) and exogenous (e.g., mannitol) solutes that are capable of creating an osmotic gradient across the membranes. In case of change in effective blood osmolality, water shifts from the compartment with low osmolality into the compartment with high osmolarity in order to restore serum osmolality. The difference between measured osmolality and calculated osmolarity forms the osmolal gap. An increase in serum osmolal gap can stem from the presence of solutes that are not included in the osmolarity calculation, such as hypertonic treatments or toxic alcoholic ingestions. In clinical practice, determination of serum osmolality and osmolal gap is important in the diagnosis of disorders related to sodium, glucose and water balance, kidney diseases, and small molecule poisonings. As blood hypertonicity exerts its main effects on the brain cells, neurologic symptoms varying from mild neurologic signs and symptoms to life-threatening outcomes such as convulsions or even death may occur. Therefore, hypertonic states should be promptly diagnosed and cautiously managed. In this review, the causes and treatment strategies of hyperosmolar conditions including hypernatremia, diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperglycemic hyperosmolar syndrome, hypertonic treatments, or intoxications are discussed in detail to increase awareness of this important topic with significant clinical consequences.
Topics: Humans; Mannitol; Urea; Osmolar Concentration; Sodium; Glucose
PubMed: 35779183
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-022-05668-1 -
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2023Acutely elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) may have devastating effects on patient mortality and neurologic outcomes, yet its initial detection remains difficult... (Review)
Review
Acutely elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) may have devastating effects on patient mortality and neurologic outcomes, yet its initial detection remains difficult because of the variety of manifestations that it can cause disease states it is associated with. Several treatment guidelines exist for specific disease processes such as trauma or ischemic stroke, but their recommendations may not apply to other causes. In the acute setting, management decisions must often be made before the underlying cause is known. In this review, we present an organized, evidence-based approach to the recognition and management of patients with suspected or confirmed elevated ICP in the first minutes to hours of resuscitation. We explore the utility of invasive and noninvasive methods of diagnosis, including history, physical examination, imaging, and ICP monitors. We synthesize various guidelines and expert recommendations and identify core management principles including noninvasive maneuvers, neuroprotective intubation and ventilation strategies, and pharmacologic therapies such as ketamine, lidocaine, corticosteroids, and the hyperosmolar agents mannitol and hypertonic saline. Although an in-depth discussion of the definitive management of each etiology is beyond the scope of this review, our goal is to provide an empirical approach to these time-sensitive, critical presentations in their initial stages.
Topics: Humans; Mannitol; Intracranial Hypertension; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Brain Injuries; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Intracranial Pressure
PubMed: 36802976
DOI: 10.1177/08850666231156589 -
American Journal of Health-system... Mar 2023Current Neurocritical Care Society guidelines on the management of cerebral edema recommend hypertonic saline (HTS) over mannitol in some scenarios, but practical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Current Neurocritical Care Society guidelines on the management of cerebral edema recommend hypertonic saline (HTS) over mannitol in some scenarios, but practical questions remain regarding the appropriate administration method, concentration/dose, monitoring to ensure safe use, and storage. The aim of this article is to address these practical concerns based on the evidence currently available.
SUMMARY
Many different hypertonic solutions have been studied to define the optimal hyperosmolar substance to relieve acute cerebral edema in patients with conditions such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and traumatic brain injury. Mannitol and HTS are the main hyperosmolar therapies in use in contemporary neurocritical care practice. Contemporary use of HTS has followed a circuitous path in regards to the practical aspects of dosing and formulation, with evidence mainly consisting of retrospective or observational data. The effectiveness of bolus doses of HTS to lower acutely elevated intracranial pressure is well accepted. Adverse events with use of HTS are often mild and non-clinically significant if appropriate monitoring of serum sodium and chloride concentrations is performed. Available evidence shows that peripheral administration of HTS is likely safe in certain circumstances. Timely utilization of HTS is complicated by regulatory requirements for safe storage, but with appropriate safeguards HTS can be stored in patient care areas.
CONCLUSION
HTS formulations, methods of administration, infusion rate, and storage vary by institution, and no practice standards exist. Central intravenous administration may be preferred for HTS, but peripheral intravenous administration is safe provided measures are undertaken to detect and prevent phlebitis and extravasation. The safe use of HTS is possible with proper protocols, education, and institutional safeguards in place.
Topics: Humans; Brain Edema; Ischemic Stroke; Retrospective Studies; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Mannitol
PubMed: 36480317
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxac368 -
American Journal of Surgery Jul 2022The treatment of rhabdomyolysis remains controversial. Although there is no question that any associated compartment syndrome needs to be identified and released, debate...
BACKGROUND
The treatment of rhabdomyolysis remains controversial. Although there is no question that any associated compartment syndrome needs to be identified and released, debate persists regarding the benefit of further therapy including aggressive intravenous fluid resuscitation (IVFR), urine alkalization with bicarbonate, and the use of mannitol. The goal of this practice management guideline was to evaluate the effects of bicarbonate, mannitol, and aggressive intravenous fluids on patients with rhabdomyolysis.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing treatments in patients with rhabdomyolysis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess the quality of evidence and to create evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of bicarbonate, mannitol, and aggressive IVFR in patients with rhabdomyolysis.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies were identified for analysis. On quantitative analysis, IVFR decreased the incidence of acute renal failure (ARF) and need for dialysis in patients with rhabdomyolysis. Neither bicarbonate nor mannitol administration improved the incidence of acute renal failure and need for dialysis in patients with rhabdomyolysis. Quality of evidence was deemed to be very low, with the vast majority of the literature being retrospective studies.
CONCLUSION
In patients with rhabdomyolysis, we conditionally recommend for aggressive IVFR to improve outcomes of ARF and lessen the need for dialysis. We conditionally recommend against treatment with bicarbonate or mannitol in patients with rhabdomyolysis.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Bicarbonates; Humans; Mannitol; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Practice Management; Retrospective Studies; Rhabdomyolysis; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34836603
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.11.022 -
Medicine Sep 2020Mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS) are effective in reducing intracranial pressure (ICP) after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, their efficacy on the ICP... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS) are effective in reducing intracranial pressure (ICP) after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, their efficacy on the ICP has not been evaluated rigorously.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of repeated bolus dosing of HTS and mannitol in similar osmotic burdens to treat intracranial hypertension (ICH) in patients with severe TBI.
METHODS
The authors used an alternating treatment protocol to evaluate the efficacy of HTS with that of mannitol given for ICH episodes in patients treated for severe TBI at their hospital during 2017 to 2019. Doses of similar osmotic burdens (20% mannitol, 2 ml/kg, or 10% HTS, 0.63 ml/kg, administered as a bolus via a central venous catheter, infused over 15 minutes) were given alternately to the individual patient with severe TBI during ICH episodes. The choice of osmotic agents for the treatment of the initial ICH episode was determined on a randomized basis; osmotic agents were alternated for every subsequent ICH episode in each individual patient. intracranial pressure (ICP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) were continuously monitored between the beginning of each osmotherapy and the return of ICP to 20 mm Hg. The duration of the effect of ICP reduction (between the beginning of osmotherapy and the return of ICP to 20 mm Hg), the maximum reduction of ICP and its time was recorded after each dose. Serum sodium and plasma osmolality were measured before, 0.5 hours and 3 hours after each dose. Adverse effects such as central pontine myelinolysis (CPM), severe fluctuations of serum sodium and plasma osmolality were assessed to evaluate the safety of repeated dosing of HTS and mannitol.
RESULTS
Eighty three patients with severe TBI were assessed, including 437 ICH episodes, receiving 236 doses of HTS and 221 doses of mannitol totally. There was no significant difference between equimolar HTS and mannitol boluses on the magnitude of ICP reduction, the duration of effect, and the time to lowest ICP achieved (P > .05). The proportion of efficacious boluses was higher for HTS than for mannitol (P = .016), as was the increase in serum sodium (P = .038). The serum osmolality increased immediately after osmotherapy with a significant difference (P = .017). No cases of CPM were detected.
CONCLUSION
Repeat bolus dosing of 10% HTS and 20% mannitol appears to be significantly and similarly effective for treating ICH in patients with severe TBI. The proportion of efficacious doses of HTS on ICP reduction may be higher than mannitol.
Topics: Adult; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Cerebrovascular Circulation; Diuretics, Osmotic; Female; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Male; Mannitol; Middle Aged; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Trauma Severity Indices
PubMed: 32957318
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022004 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2022Hyperosmolar agents are cornerstone therapies for pediatric severe traumatic brain injury. Guideline recommendations for 3% hypertonic saline (HTS) are based on limited...
IMPORTANCE
Hyperosmolar agents are cornerstone therapies for pediatric severe traumatic brain injury. Guideline recommendations for 3% hypertonic saline (HTS) are based on limited numbers of patients, and no study to date has supported a recommendation for mannitol.
OBJECTIVES
To characterize current use of hyperosmolar agents in pediatric severe traumatic brain injury and assess whether HTS or mannitol is associated with greater decreases in intracranial pressure (ICP) and/or increases in cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
In this comparative effectiveness research study, 1018 children were screened and 18 were excluded; 787 children received some form of hyperosmolar therapy during the ICP-directed phase of care, with 521 receiving a bolus. Three of these children were excluded because they had received only bolus administration of both HTS and mannitol in the same hour, leaving 518 children (at 44 clinical sites in 8 countries) for analysis. The study was conducted from February 1, 2014, to September 31, 2017, with follow-up for 1 week after injury. Final analysis was performed July 20, 2021.
INTERVENTIONS
Boluses of HTS and mannitol were administered.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Data on ICP and CPP were collected before and after medication administration. Statistical methods included linear mixed models and corrections for potential confounding variables to compare the 2 treatments.
RESULTS
A total of 518 children (mean [SD] age, 7.6 [5.4] years; 336 [64.9%] male; 274 [52.9%] White) were included. Participants' mean (SD) Glasgow Coma Scale score was 5.2 (1.8). Bolus HTS was observed to decrease ICP and increase CPP (mean [SD] ICP, 1.03 [6.77] mm Hg; P < .001; mean [SD] CPP, 1.25 [12.47] mm Hg; P < .001), whereas mannitol was observed to increase CPP (mean [SD] CPP, 1.20 [11.43] mm Hg; P = .009). In the primary outcome, HTS was associated with a greater reduction in ICP compared with mannitol (unadjusted β, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.19), but no association was seen after adjustments (adjusted β, -0.53; 95% CI, -1.32 to 0.25; P = .18). No differences in CPP were observed. When ICP was greater than 20 mm Hg, greater than 25 mm Hg, or greater than 30 mm Hg, HTS outperformed mannitol for each threshold in observed ICP reduction (>20 mm Hg: unadjusted β, -2.51; 95% CI, -3.86 to -1.15, P < .001; >25 mm Hg: unadjusted β, -3.88; 95% CI, -5.69 to -2.06, P < .001; >30 mm Hg: unadjusted β, -4.07; 95% CI, -6.35 to -1.79, P < .001), with results remaining significant for ICP greater than 25 mm Hg in adjusted analysis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this comparative effectiveness research study, bolus HTS was associated with lower ICP and higher CPP, whereas mannitol was associated only with higher CPP. After adjustment for confounders, both therapies showed no association with ICP and CPP. During ICP crises, HTS was associated with better performance than mannitol.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Child; Female; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Male; Mannitol; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 35267036
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0891 -
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