Search

Importance: Fever is associated with worse outcomes in patients with stroke, but whether preventing fever improves outcomes is unclear., Objective: To determine whether fever prevention after acute vascular brain injury is achievable and impacts functional outcome., Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment that enrolled 686 of 1176 planned critically ill patients with stroke at 43 intensive care units in 7 countries from March 2017 to April 2021 (last date of follow-up was May 12, 2022)., Intervention: Patients randomized to fever prevention (n = 339) were targeted to 37.0 °C for 14 days or intensive care unit discharge using an automated surface temperature management device. Standard care patients (n = 338) received standardized tiered fever treatment on occurrence of temperature of 38 °C or greater., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was daily mean fever burden: the area under the temperature curve above 37.9 °C (total fever burden) divided by the total number of hours in the acute phase, multiplied by 24 hours (°C-hour). The principal secondary outcome was 3-month functional recovery by shift analysis of the 6-category modified Rankin Scale, which is scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death). Major adverse events included death, pneumonia, sepsis, and malignant cerebral edema., Results: Enrollment was stopped after a planned interim analysis demonstrated futility of the principal secondary end point. In total, 686 patients were enrolled, and 9 were consented but not randomized, leaving a primary analysis population of 677 patients (254 ischemic stroke, 223 intracerebral hemorrhage, 200 subarachnoid hemorrhage; 345 were female [51%]; median age, 62 years) with 433 (64%) completing the study through 12 months. Daily mean (SD) fever burden was significantly lower in the fever prevention group (0.37 [1.0] °C-hour; range, 0.0-8.0 °C-hour) compared with the standard care group (0.73 [1.1] °C-hour; range, 0.0-10.3 °C-hour) (difference, -0.35 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.20]; P < .001). Between-group differences for the primary outcome by stroke subtype were -0.10 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.15) for ischemic stroke, -0.50 (95% CI, -0.78 to -0.22) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and -0.52 (95% CI, -0.81 to -0.23) for subarachnoid hemorrhage (all P < .001 by Wilcoxon rank-sum test). There was no significant difference in functional recovery at 3 months (median modified Rankin Scale score, 4.0 vs 4.0, respectively; odds ratio for a favorable shift in functional outcome, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.46]; P = .54). Major adverse events occurred in 82.2% of participants in the fever prevention group vs 75.9% in the standard care group, including 33.8% vs 34.5% for infections, 14.5% vs 14.0% for cardiac disorders, and 24.5% vs 20.5% for respiratory disorders., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute vascular brain injury, preventive normothermia using an automated surface temperature management device effectively reduced fever burden but did not improve functional outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02996266.

Background: Targeted temperature management (TTM) is often used in neurocritical care to minimize secondary neurologic injury and improve outcomes. TTM encompasses therapeutic hypothermia, controlled normothermia, and treatment of fever. TTM is best supported by evidence from neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, although it has also been explored in ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, and intracranial hemorrhage patients. Critical care clinicians using TTM must select appropriate cooling techniques, provide a reasonable rate of cooling, manage shivering, and ensure adequate patient monitoring among other challenges., Methods: The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacotherapy to form a writing Committee in 2015. The group generated a set of 16 clinical questions relevant to TTM using the PICO format. With the assistance of a research librarian, the Committee undertook a comprehensive literature search with no back date through November 2016 with additional references up to March 2017., Results: The Committee utilized GRADE methodology to adjudicate the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the estimate of effect approximated the true effect. They generated recommendations regarding the implementation of TTM based on this systematic review only after considering the quality of evidence, relative risks and benefits, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation., Conclusion: This guideline is intended for neurocritical care clinicians who have chosen to use TTM in patient care; it is not meant to provide guidance regarding the clinical indications for TTM itself. While there are areas of TTM practice where clear evidence guides strong recommendations, many of the recommendations are conditional, and must be contextualized to individual patient and system needs.

Purpose: Continuous EEG screening using spectrograms or compressed spectral arrays (CSAs) by neurophysiologists has shorter review times with minimal loss of sensitivity for seizure detection when compared with visual analysis of raw EEG. Limited data are available on the performance characteristics of CSA-based seizure detection by neurocritical care nurses., Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study that was conducted in two academic neurocritical care units and involved 33 neurointensive care unit nurses and four neurophysiologists., Results: All nurses underwent a brief training session before testing. Forty two-hour CSA segments of continuous EEG were reviewed and rated for the presence of seizures. Two experienced clinical neurophysiologists masked to the CSA data performed conventional visual analysis of the raw EEG and served as the gold standard. The overall accuracy was 55.7% among nurses and 67.5% among neurophysiologists. Nurse seizure detection sensitivity was 73.8%, and the false-positive rate was 1-per-3.2 hours. Sensitivity and false-alarm rate for the neurophysiologists was 66.3% and 1-per-6.4 hours, respectively. Interrater agreement for seizure screening was fair for nurses (Gwet AC1 statistic: 43.4%) and neurophysiologists (AC1: 46.3%)., Conclusions: Training nurses to perform seizure screening utilizing continuous EEG CSA displays is feasible and associated with moderate sensitivity. Nurses and neurophysiologists had comparable sensitivities, but nurses had a higher false-positive rate. Further work is needed to improve sensitivity and reduce false-alarm rates.

External ventricular drains (EVDs) are commonly placed to monitor intracranial pressure and manage acute hydrocephalus in patients with a variety of intracranial pathologies. The indications for EVD insertion and their efficacy in the management of these various conditions have been previously addressed in guidelines published by the Brain Trauma Foundation, American Heart Association and combined committees of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. While it is well recognized that placement of an EVD may be a lifesaving intervention, the benefits can be offset by procedural and catheter-related complications, such as hemorrhage along the catheter tract, catheter malposition, and CSF infection. Despite their widespread use, there are a lack of high-quality data regarding the best methods for placement and management of EVDs to minimize these risks. Existing recommendations are frequently based on observational data from a single center and may be biased to the authors' view. To address the need for a comprehensive set of evidence-based guidelines for EVD management, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a committee of experts in the fields of neurosurgery, neurology, neuroinfectious disease, critical care, pharmacotherapy, and nursing. The Committee generated clinical questions relevant to EVD placement and management. They developed recommendations based on a thorough literature review using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, with emphasis placed not only on the quality of the evidence, but also on the balance of benefits versus risks, patient values and preferences, and resource considerations.