Search

The best management of patients who suffer from traumatic brain injury (TBI) while on oral anticoagulants is one of the most disputed problems of emergency services. Indeed, guidelines, clinical decision rules, and observational studies addressing this topic are scarce and conflicting. Moreover, relevant issues such as the specific treatment (and even definition) of mild TBI, rate of delayed intracranial injury, indications for neurosurgery, and anticoagulant modulation are largely empiric. We reviewed the most recent evidence on these topics and explored other clinically relevant aspects, such as the promising role of dosing brain biomarkers, the strategies to assess the extent of anticoagulation, and the indications of reversals and tranexamic acid administration, in cases of mild TBI or as a bridge to neurosurgery. The appropriate timing of anticoagulant resumption was also discussed. Finally, we obtained an insight into the economic burden of TBI in patients on oral anticoagulants, and future directions on the management of this subpopulation of TBI patients were proposed. In this article, at the end of each section, a "take home message" is stated.

Background: The optimal management of patients taking oral anticoagulants who experience minor head injury (MHI) is unclear. The availability of validated protocols and reliable predictors of prognosis would be of great benefit. We investigated clinical factors as predictors of clinical outcomes and intracranial injury (ICI)., Methods: We conducted a single-cohort, prospective, observational study in an ED. Our structured clinical pathway included a first head CT scan, 24 h observation and a second CT scan. The primary outcome was the occurrence of MHI-related death or re-admission to ED at day +30. The secondary outcome was the rate of delayed ICI (dICI), defined as second positive CT scan after a first negative CT scan. We assessed some clinical predictors derived from guidelines and clinical prediction rules as potential risk factors for the outcomes., Results: 450 patients with a negative first CT scan who underwent a second CT scan composed our 'study population'. The rate of the primary outcome was 4%. The rate of the secondary outcome was 4.7%. Upon univariate and multivariate analysis no statistically significant predictors for the outcomes were found., Conclusions: Previous retrospective studies showed a lot of negative predictive factors for anticoagulated patients suffering a minor head injury. In our prospective study no clinical factors emerged as predictors of poor clinical outcomes and dICI. So, even if we confirmed a low rate of adverse outcomes, the best management of these patients in ED remains not so clear and future trials are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Data in literature indicate that in patients suffering a minor head injury (MHI), biomarkers serum levels could be effective to predict the absence of intracranial injury (ICI) on head CT scan. Use of these biomarkers in case of patients taking oral anticoagulants who experience MHI is very limited. We investigated biomarkers as predictors of ICI in anticoagulated patients managed in an ED., Methods: We conducted a single-cohort, prospective, observational study in an ED. Our structured clinical pathway included a first head CT scan, 24 h observation and a second CT scan. The outcome was delayed ICI (dICI), defined as ICI on the second CT scan after a first negative CT scan. We assessed the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), negative predictive value (NNV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the biomarkers S100B, NSE, GFAP, UCH-L1 and Alinity TBI in order to identify dICI., Results: Our study population was of 234 patients with a negative first CT scan who underwent a second CT scan. The rate of dICI was 4.7 %. The NPV for the detection of dICI were respectively (IC 95 %): S100B 92.7 % (86.0-96.8 %,); ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) 91.8 % (83.8-96.6 %); glial fibrillary protein (GFP) 100 % (83.2-100 %); TBI 100 % (66.4-100 %). The AUC for the detection of dICI was 0.407 for S100B, 0.563 for neuron-specific enolase (NSE), 0.510 for UCH-L1 and 0.720 for glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), respectively., Conclusions: The NPV of the analyzed biomarkers were high and they potentially could limit the number of head CT scan for detecting dICI in anticoagulated patients suffering MHI. GFAP and Alinity TBI seem to be effective to rule out a dCI, but future trials are needed., (© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Flexible bronchoscopy (FB) has become a standard of care for the triad of inspection, sampling, and treatment in critical care patients. It is an invaluable tool for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Less is known about its role outside the ICU, particularly in the intermediate care unit (IMCU), a specialized environment, where an intermediate grade of intensive care and monitoring between standard care unit and ICU is provided. In the IMCU, the leading indications for a diagnostic work-up are: To visualize airway system/obstructions, perform investigations to detect respiratory infections, and identify potential sources of hemoptysis. The main procedures for therapeutic purposes are secretion aspiration, mucus plug removal to solve atelectasis (total or lobar), and blood aspiration during hemoptysis. The decision to perform FB might depend on the balance between potential benefits and risks due to frailty of critically ill patients. Serious adverse events related to FB are relatively uncommon, but they may be due to lack of expertise or appropriate precautions. Finally, nowadays, during dramatic recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the exact role of FB in COVID-19 patients admitted to IMCU has yet to be clearly defined. Hence, we provide a concise review on the role of FB in an IMCU setting, focusing on its indications, technical aspects and complications., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors certify that there is no conflict of interest related to the manuscript., (©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)