Rudy Luna, Barbara Basil, Davis Ewbank, Brittany M Kasturiarachi, Moshe A Mizrahi, Laura B Ngwenya, Brandon Foreman
{"title":"多模态神经监测数据标准化解释和报告的临床影响","authors":"Rudy Luna, Barbara Basil, Davis Ewbank, Brittany M Kasturiarachi, Moshe A Mizrahi, Laura B Ngwenya, Brandon Foreman","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate the consistency and clinical impact of standardized multimodality neuromonitoring (MNM) interpretation and reporting within a system of care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective, observational historical case-control study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single-center academic level I trauma center.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Standardized interpretation of MNM data summarized within daily reports.</p><p><strong>Measurements main results: </strong>Consecutive patients with sTBI undergoing MNM were included. Historical controls were patients monitored before implementation of standardized MNM interpretation; cases were defined as patients with available MNM interpretative reports. Patient characteristics, physiologic data, and clinical outcomes were recorded, and clinical MNM reporting elements were abstracted. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale score 3-6 months postinjury. One hundred twenty-nine patients were included (age 42 ± 18 yr, 82% men); 45 (35%) patients were monitored before standardized MNM interpretation and reporting, and 84 (65%) patients were monitored after that. Patients undergoing standardized interpretative reporting received fewer hyperosmotic agents (3 [1-6] vs. 6 [1-8]; p = 0.04) and spent less time above an intracranial threshold of 22 mm Hg (22% ± 26% vs. 28% ± 24%; p = 0.05). The MNM interpretation cohort had a lower proportion of anesthetic days (48% [24-70%] vs. 67% [33-91%]; p = 0.02) and higher average end-tidal carbon dioxide during monitoring (34 ± 6 mm Hg vs. 32 ± 6 mm Hg; p < 0.01; d = 0.36). After controlling for injury severity, patients undergoing standardized MNM interpretation and reporting had an odds of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.37-1.59) for better outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardized interpretation and reporting of MNM data are a novel approach to provide clinical insight and to guide individualized critical care. In patients with sTBI, independent MNM interpretation and communication to bedside clinical care teams may result in improved intracranial pressure control, fewer medical interventions, and changes in ventilatory management. In this study, the implementation of a system for management, including standardized MNM interpretation, was associated with a significant improvement in outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 8","pages":"e1139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11319310/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Impact of Standardized Interpretation and Reporting of Multimodality Neuromonitoring Data.\",\"authors\":\"Rudy Luna, Barbara Basil, Davis Ewbank, Brittany M Kasturiarachi, Moshe A Mizrahi, Laura B Ngwenya, Brandon Foreman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate the consistency and clinical impact of standardized multimodality neuromonitoring (MNM) interpretation and reporting within a system of care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective, observational historical case-control study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single-center academic level I trauma center.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Standardized interpretation of MNM data summarized within daily reports.</p><p><strong>Measurements main results: </strong>Consecutive patients with sTBI undergoing MNM were included. Historical controls were patients monitored before implementation of standardized MNM interpretation; cases were defined as patients with available MNM interpretative reports. Patient characteristics, physiologic data, and clinical outcomes were recorded, and clinical MNM reporting elements were abstracted. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale score 3-6 months postinjury. One hundred twenty-nine patients were included (age 42 ± 18 yr, 82% men); 45 (35%) patients were monitored before standardized MNM interpretation and reporting, and 84 (65%) patients were monitored after that. Patients undergoing standardized interpretative reporting received fewer hyperosmotic agents (3 [1-6] vs. 6 [1-8]; p = 0.04) and spent less time above an intracranial threshold of 22 mm Hg (22% ± 26% vs. 28% ± 24%; p = 0.05). The MNM interpretation cohort had a lower proportion of anesthetic days (48% [24-70%] vs. 67% [33-91%]; p = 0.02) and higher average end-tidal carbon dioxide during monitoring (34 ± 6 mm Hg vs. 32 ± 6 mm Hg; p < 0.01; d = 0.36). After controlling for injury severity, patients undergoing standardized MNM interpretation and reporting had an odds of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.37-1.59) for better outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardized interpretation and reporting of MNM data are a novel approach to provide clinical insight and to guide individualized critical care. In patients with sTBI, independent MNM interpretation and communication to bedside clinical care teams may result in improved intracranial pressure control, fewer medical interventions, and changes in ventilatory management. In this study, the implementation of a system for management, including standardized MNM interpretation, was associated with a significant improvement in outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"volume\":\"6 8\",\"pages\":\"e1139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11319310/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的评估严重创伤性脑损伤(sTBI)患者护理系统中标准化多模态神经监测(MNM)解释和报告的一致性和临床影响:设计:回顾性、观察性历史病例对照研究:干预措施:干预措施:对每日报告中汇总的 MNM 数据进行标准化解释:纳入了连续接受MNM的sTBI患者。历史对照组是在实施标准化MNM解读之前接受监测的患者;病例是指有MNM解读报告的患者。记录了患者特征、生理数据和临床结果,并摘录了临床 MNM 报告要素。主要结果是受伤后 3-6 个月的格拉斯哥结果量表评分。共纳入 129 名患者(年龄 42 ± 18 岁,82% 为男性);45 名患者(35%)在接受标准化 MNM 解释和报告前接受了监测,84 名患者(65%)在接受标准化解释和报告后接受了监测。接受标准化解释报告的患者接受的高渗剂较少(3 [1-6] 对 6 [1-8];P = 0.04),颅内血压超过 22 mm Hg 临界值的时间较短(22% ± 26% 对 28% ± 24%;P = 0.05)。MNM解释队列的麻醉天数比例较低(48% [24-70%] vs. 67% [33-91%]; p = 0.02),监测期间平均潮气末二氧化碳较高(34 ± 6 mm Hg vs. 32 ± 6 mm Hg; p < 0.01; d = 0.36)。在控制损伤严重程度后,接受标准化 MNM 解释和报告的患者获得更好结果的几率为 1.5(95% CI,1.37-1.59):MNM数据的标准化解释和报告是一种新方法,可提供临床洞察力并指导个性化重症护理。对于 sTBI 患者,独立的 MNM 解释和与床旁临床护理团队的沟通可改善颅内压控制、减少医疗干预和改变通气管理。在这项研究中,实施包括标准化 MNM 解读在内的管理系统可显著改善预后。
Clinical Impact of Standardized Interpretation and Reporting of Multimodality Neuromonitoring Data.
Objective: Evaluate the consistency and clinical impact of standardized multimodality neuromonitoring (MNM) interpretation and reporting within a system of care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).
Setting: Single-center academic level I trauma center.
Interventions: Standardized interpretation of MNM data summarized within daily reports.
Measurements main results: Consecutive patients with sTBI undergoing MNM were included. Historical controls were patients monitored before implementation of standardized MNM interpretation; cases were defined as patients with available MNM interpretative reports. Patient characteristics, physiologic data, and clinical outcomes were recorded, and clinical MNM reporting elements were abstracted. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale score 3-6 months postinjury. One hundred twenty-nine patients were included (age 42 ± 18 yr, 82% men); 45 (35%) patients were monitored before standardized MNM interpretation and reporting, and 84 (65%) patients were monitored after that. Patients undergoing standardized interpretative reporting received fewer hyperosmotic agents (3 [1-6] vs. 6 [1-8]; p = 0.04) and spent less time above an intracranial threshold of 22 mm Hg (22% ± 26% vs. 28% ± 24%; p = 0.05). The MNM interpretation cohort had a lower proportion of anesthetic days (48% [24-70%] vs. 67% [33-91%]; p = 0.02) and higher average end-tidal carbon dioxide during monitoring (34 ± 6 mm Hg vs. 32 ± 6 mm Hg; p < 0.01; d = 0.36). After controlling for injury severity, patients undergoing standardized MNM interpretation and reporting had an odds of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.37-1.59) for better outcomes.
Conclusions: Standardized interpretation and reporting of MNM data are a novel approach to provide clinical insight and to guide individualized critical care. In patients with sTBI, independent MNM interpretation and communication to bedside clinical care teams may result in improved intracranial pressure control, fewer medical interventions, and changes in ventilatory management. In this study, the implementation of a system for management, including standardized MNM interpretation, was associated with a significant improvement in outcome.