Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 1.15 MB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. Variation in monitoring and treatment...

Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

Maryse C Cnossen, Jilske A Huijben, Mathieu van der Jagt, Victor Volovici, Thomas van Essen, Suzanne Polinder, David Nelson, Ari Ercole, Nino Stocchetti, Giuseppe Citerio, et al.
(2017) CRITICAL CARE. 21.
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI. Methods: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed on the basis of literature and expert opinion, and it was pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Results: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately 90% of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomographic abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first-and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as using a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%). Conclusions: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with TBI and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research.
Keywords
EUROPEAN-BRAIN, HEAD-INJURY, MANAGEMENT, CARE, MORTALITY, PRESSURE, MODERATE, IMPACT, Traumatic brain injury, Intracranial hypertension, ICP, ICU, Comparative, effectiveness research, Survey

Downloads

  • Download
    Cnossen CritCare-2017.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.15 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Cnossen, Maryse C., et al. “Variation in Monitoring and Treatment Policies for Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury : A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.” CRITICAL CARE, vol. 21, 2017, doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9.
APA
Cnossen, M. C., Huijben, J. A., van der Jagt, M., Volovici, V., van Essen, T., Polinder, S., … Van Roost, D. (2017). Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. CRITICAL CARE, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9
Chicago author-date
Cnossen, Maryse C, Jilske A Huijben, Mathieu van der Jagt, Victor Volovici, Thomas van Essen, Suzanne Polinder, David Nelson, et al. 2017. “Variation in Monitoring and Treatment Policies for Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury : A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.” CRITICAL CARE 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Cnossen, Maryse C, Jilske A Huijben, Mathieu van der Jagt, Victor Volovici, Thomas van Essen, Suzanne Polinder, David Nelson, Ari Ercole, Nino Stocchetti, Giuseppe Citerio, Wilco C Peul, Andrew IR Maas, David Menon, Ewout W Steyerberg, Hester F Lingsma, the CENTER-TBI investigators and participants, Jean-Pierre Kalala Okito, and Dirk Van Roost. 2017. “Variation in Monitoring and Treatment Policies for Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury : A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.” CRITICAL CARE 21. doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9.
Vancouver
1.
Cnossen MC, Huijben JA, van der Jagt M, Volovici V, van Essen T, Polinder S, et al. Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. CRITICAL CARE. 2017;21.
IEEE
[1]
M. C. Cnossen et al., “Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study,” CRITICAL CARE, vol. 21, 2017.
@article{8606533,
  abstract     = {{Background: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI. 
Methods: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed on the basis of literature and expert opinion, and it was pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. 
Results: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately 90% of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomographic abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first-and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as using a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%). 
Conclusions: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with TBI and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research.}},
  articleno    = {{233}},
  author       = {{Cnossen, Maryse C and Huijben, Jilske A and van der Jagt, Mathieu and Volovici, Victor and van Essen, Thomas and Polinder, Suzanne and Nelson, David and Ercole, Ari and Stocchetti, Nino and Citerio, Giuseppe and Peul, Wilco C and Maas, Andrew IR and Menon, David and Steyerberg, Ewout W and Lingsma, Hester F and CENTER-TBI investigators and participants, the and Kalala Okito, Jean-Pierre and Van Roost, Dirk}},
  issn         = {{1466-609X}},
  journal      = {{CRITICAL CARE}},
  keywords     = {{EUROPEAN-BRAIN,HEAD-INJURY,MANAGEMENT,CARE,MORTALITY,PRESSURE,MODERATE,IMPACT,Traumatic brain injury,Intracranial hypertension,ICP,ICU,Comparative,effectiveness research,Survey}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{12}},
  title        = {{Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9}},
  volume       = {{21}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: