Articles: brain-injuries.
-
Intensive care medicine · Jan 1994
Comparative StudyA new therapy of post-trauma brain oedema based on haemodynamic principles for brain volume regulation.
To evaluate a new therapy of posttraumatic brain oedema, with the main concept that opening of the blood-brain barrier upsets the normal brain volume regulation, inducing oedema formation. This means that transcapillary fluid fluxes will be controlled by hydrostatic capillary and colloid osmotic pressures, rather than by crystalloid osmotic pressure. If so, brain oedema therapy should include reduction of hydrostatic capillary pressure and preservation of normal colloid osmotic pressure. ⋯ The results indicate that the therapy should focus on extracellular rather than intracellular oedema and that ischemia is not the main triggering mechanism behind oedema formation. We suggest that our therapy is superior to conventional therapy by preventing herniation during the healing period of the blood-brain barrier.
-
The current literature reports many measurements (arteriovenous oxygen content difference and cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen, etc.) with samples from the internal jugular veins (IJs), obtained from either side of the neck, based on the assumption that a reliable sample of mixed venous blood can be drawn. We compared oxygen saturation in both IJs in 32 patients with head injuries to establish the similarities or discrepancies in the two veins. Both IJs were cannulated with 20-G catheters; in five patients, a fiberoptic catheter was used to obtain a continuous recording of the hemoglobin saturation. ⋯ Ultimately, only eight patients had differences of less than 5%. No relationship was found among the computed tomographic scan data and the pattern of hemoglobin saturation detected. Therefore, we were not able to identify the side more appropriate for monitoring in patients with bilateral, predominantly monolateral, cortical, or deeply located lesions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Zentralbl. Neurochir. · Jan 1994
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical Trial"Ultrahigh" dexamethasone in acute brain injury. Results from a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial (GUDHIS). German Ultrahigh Dexamethasone Head Injury Study Group.
In a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial, the efficacy and safety of a 51-hour ultra-high intravenous dexamethasone dosing regimen was investigated in patients with moderate and severe head injury. 300 patients between 15 and 55 years of age were randomized to receive either placebo or dexamethasone: 500 mg intravenous infusion within 3 h after trauma initially, followed by 200 mg after 3 h, thereafter 8 times 200 mg at 6 hourly intervals, resulting in a total administered dose of 2,3 g in 51 hours. Primary end points for assessment of efficacy were: Modified Glasgow Coma Scale (grading 3-16) on Day 5, modified Glasgow Outcome Scale (grading 1-6) 10-14 months after injury, and the time interval until consciousness improved above a level of modified GCS > or = 8. ⋯ Results were surprisingly favourable in both groups: Lethality in the dexamethasone and placebo group was 14.3 and 15.4%, respectively, and 61.7 and 57.4%, respectively, achieved social and professional rehabilitation after 10-14 months (outcome scale 6). No statistical difference was seen between the dexamethasone and the placebo group in any of the primary end points of efficacy and safety (incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, and thrombosis).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Cerebral lesions of variable severity lead to systemic and intracranial reactions. These create secondary brain damage due to hypoxia and ischemia. The causes as well as the sequelae of secondary brain damage necessitate long-term intensive care treatment with high technical and personal expenditure. ⋯ The decision to limit treatment should be based on the numerous national and international statistical models and discussed on an individual basis, excluding even a 5% chance of survival. Early information of the family on the probable prognosis is useful. Their participation in the process of decision can be assessed only on an individual basis.