4.4 Article

Implementation of Multimodality Neurologic Monitoring Reporting in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Management

Journal

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 3-15

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-021-01190-8

Keywords

Traumatic Brain Injury; Pediatric Neurocritical Care; Quality Improvement; Multimodal Neurologic Monitoring; Hospital Complications

Funding

  1. United States Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Epilepsy Research Program [W81XWH-19-1-0514]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study describes the implementation of standardized MMM reporting in a pediatric ICU, leading to clinical decision-making improvements related to neuroimaging timing, ICP monitoring and mechanical ventilator duration. It was associated with a reduction in ICP monitoring and mechanical ventilator duration, but did not significantly impact other outcomes such as initial GCS or PRISM III scores, hospitalization length, complications, or GOS-E Peds scores. Prospective research is needed to further investigate the impact of MMM on functional outcomes and clinical care efficacy.
Background/Objective Multimodality neurologic monitoring (MMM) is an emerging technique for management of traumatic brain injury (TBI). An increasing array of MMM-derived biomarkers now exist that are associated with injury severity and functional outcomes after TBI. A standardized MMM reporting process has not been well described, and a paucity of evidence exists relating MMM reporting in TBI management with functional outcomes or adverse events. Methods Prospective implementation of standardized MMM reporting at a single pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is described that included monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral oxygenation and electroencephalography (EEG). The incidence of clinical decisions made using MMM reporting is described, including timing of neuroimaging, ICP monitoring discontinuation, use of paralytic, hyperosmolar and pentobarbital therapies, neurosurgical interventions, ventilator and CPP adjustments and neurologic prognostication discussions. Retrospective analysis was performed on the association of MMM reporting with initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III) scores, duration of total hospitalization and PICU hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation and invasive ICP monitoring, inpatient complications, time with ICP > 20 mmHg, time with cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) < 40 mmHg and 12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Pediatrics (GOSE-Peds) scores. Association of outcomes with MMM reporting was investigated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Results Eighty-five children with TBI underwent MMM over 6 years, among which 18 underwent daily MMM reporting over a 21-month period. Clinical decision-making influenced by MMM reporting included timing of neuroimaging (100.0%), ICP monitoring discontinuation (100.0%), timing of extubation trials of surviving patients (100.0%), body repositioning (11.1%), paralytic therapy (16.7%), hyperosmolar therapy (22.2%), pentobarbital therapy (33.3%), provocative cerebral autoregulation testing (16.7%), adjustments in CPP thresholds (16.7%), adjustments in PaCO2 thresholds (11.1%), neurosurgical interventions (16.7%) and neurologic prognostication discussions (11.1%). The implementation of MMM reporting was associated with a reduction in ICP monitoring duration (p = 0.0017) and mechanical ventilator duration (p = 0.0018). No significant differences were observed in initial GCS or PRISM III scores, total hospitalization length, PICU hospitalization length, total complications, time with ICP > 20 mmHg, time with CPP < 40 mmHg, use of tier 2 therapy, or 12-month GOS-E Peds scores. Conclusion Implementation of MMM reporting in pediatric TBI management is feasible and can be impactful in tailoring clinical decisions. Prospective work is needed to understand the impact of MMM and MMM reporting systems on functional outcomes and clinical care efficacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available