3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Cerebral hypoxia in severely brain-injured patients is associated with admission Glasgow Coma Scale score, computed tomographic severity, cerebral perfusion pressure, and survival

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TA.0000114537.52540.95

关键词

cerebral hypoxia; Glasgow Coma Scale score; cerebral perfusion pressure; computed tomographic scan score; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of cerebral hypoxia with admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, brain computed tomographic (CT) severity, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and survival in patients with severe brain injury. Methods. CPP and noninvasive transcranial oximetry (Stco(2)) were recorded hourly for 6 days in patients with a GCS score :5 8 (3,722 observations). CT score was derived from midline shift (0/1) plus abnormal cisterns (0/1) plus subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) (0/1) (range, 0-3). Results. Brain CT results were as follows: shift, 10 (56%); abnormal cisterns, 14 (78%); SAH, 9 (50%); epidural hematoma, 2 (11%); subdural hematoma, 11 (61%); and contusion, 17 (94%). The incidences of Stco(2) < 60 were: GCS score 3-4, 26.5%; GCS score 5-7, 12.4%; and kGCS score 8, 2.8% (p < 0.0001); CT score 2/3, 26.4%; and CT score 0/1, 10.0% (p < 0.0001); nonsurvivors 36.1%; and survivors 16.3% (p < 0.0001). For incidence of CPP < 70, the results were as follows: Stco(2) < 60%, 33% of observations; Stco(2) greater than or equal to 60%, 10% of observations (odds ratio, 4.3; p < .01). Despite CPP greater than or equal to 70, Stco(2) < 60 incidence was 16% of observations. Conclusion. Cerebral hypoxia is common, even with CPP greater than or equal to 70, and is associated with GCS score, CT scan severity, and mortality. Cerebral hypoxia is related to cerebral hypoperfusion. Additional studies may prove that Stco(2) monitoring will enhance the treatment of severe brain injury.

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

3.9
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