4.4 Article

Early Cerebral Metabolic Crisis After TBI Influences Outcome Despite Adequate Hemodynamic Resuscitation

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 49-57

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-012-9708-y

关键词

Brain trauma; Glucose; Lactate; Lactate/pyruvate ratio; Microdialysis; Resuscitation

资金

  1. [NS-058489]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal resuscitation after traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains uncertain. We hypothesize that cerebral metabolic crisis is frequent despite adequate resuscitation of the TBI patient and that metabolic crisis negatively influences outcome. We assessed the effectiveness of a standardized trauma resuscitation protocol in 89 patients with moderate to severe TBI, and determined the frequency of adequate resuscitation. Prospective hourly values of heart rate, blood pressure, pulse oximetry, intracranial pressure (ICP), respiratory rate, jugular venous oximetry, and brain extracellular values of glucose, lactate, pyruvate, glycerol, and glutamate were obtained. The incidence during the initial 72 h after injury of low brain glucose < 0.8 mmol/L, elevated lactate/pyruvate ratio (LPR) > 25, and metabolic crisis, defined as the simultaneous occurrence of both low glucose and high LPR, were determined for the group. 5 patients were inadequately resuscitated and eight patients had intractable ICP. In patients with successful resuscitation and controlled ICP (n = 76), within 72 h of trauma, 76 % had low glucose, 93 % had elevated LPR, and 74 % were in metabolic crisis. The duration of metabolic crisis was longer in those patients with unfavorable (GOSe a parts per thousand currency sign 6) versus favorable (GOSe a parts per thousand yen 7) outcome at 6 months (P = 0.011). In four multivariate models the burden of metabolic crisis was a powerful independent predictor of poor outcome. Metabolic crisis occurs frequently after TBI despite adequate resuscitation and controlled ICP, and is a strong independent predictor of poor outcome at 6 months.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据