4.6 Article

R3-Survey of traumatic brain injury management in European Brain IT centres year 2001

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 1058-1065

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-004-2206-8

关键词

head injury; management; survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To obtain knowledge about the conditions and management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a collaborative network of Brain Information Technology centres. Design. The Brain IT (Brain monitoring with Information Technology) survey comprised two parts: local conditions and policies (part A), and a case study part (part B). The information was gathered by written questionnaires followed by telephone interviews. Participants. Twenty-four Brain IT centres participated (two respondents from 18 sites). Results. The average proportion of agreement between duplicate respondents was 0.79 (range 0.44-1.00). All Brain IT centres monitored ICP. The reported order of treatment for intracranial hypertension was: evacuation of mass-lesions and head elevation (1), increase of sedation and Mannitol scheme (2), hyperventilation (3), ventricular drainage (4), craniectomy and pentothal coma (5), and decompressive lobectomy (6). The respondents were less prone to evacuate expansive contusions in relation to extra cerebral hematomas. The most common suggested interventions (alone or in combination) for treatment of intracranial hypertension without mass lesions was the Mannitol scheme (included in 71% of the suggestions), CSF drainage (included in 56%), hyperventilation (included in 32%), and pentothal coma (included in 22%). Conclusions. The suggested management of TBI was mainly in accordance with published guidelines, although a minor proportion of the answers deviated to some extent. The suggested order and combinations of different treatment interventions varied. Variation of treatment within the range of prescribed standards provides optimal conditions for an interesting future analysis of treatment and monitoring data as collected prospectively in a Brain IT database.

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

4.6
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