RESUMO
Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide, resulting in a significant individual and socioeconomic burden. Current treatment guidelines do not include any recommendations for neuroprotective or neuoregenerative drugs. Here, we present a combined treatment with Cerebrolysin and Citicoline in two cases. Both drugs are experimentally better than clinically proven in their own effectiveness, but there is almost no clinical data on the combination of the two. Our case study hints at a promising approach that may improve neurological outcome after sTBI. The first patient was a 29 years male motorcyclist suffered polytrauma in a high-speed accident. He had severe bilateral chest trauma and fractures in both thighs and an sTBI. In addition to surgical and standard neurocritical care according to the evidence-based guidelines, he was given neuroprotective therapy with Cerebrolysin (50 ml/day) and Citicoline (3 g/day), by continuous intravenous infusion (IV), for 21 days. The second patient was a 30 years male ski mountaineer who had suffered a fall over 300 m in open terrain. In addition to the sTBI, he had fractures in the cervical spine, ribs, pelvis, and lower extremities, as well as lung contusions and massive soft tissue trauma. After initial treatment in a local hospital, he was transferred to our department and received the same neuroprotective drugs, like all of our patients with sTBI. Considering the severity of the injuries (Injury Severity Score [ISS]: 43/50, Revised Trauma Score [RTS: 5.0304, 2.7794]) and the unfavorable outcome probability (Hukkelhoven Score) of 93.1% and 82.6%, the outcomes of both patients are surprisingly encouraging 1 year after the accident. They achieved a Glasgow Outcome Score of 6 and 5 and grades 2 and 4 on the modified Rankin Scale, respectively. Currently, both are able to take care of themselves in activities of daily life to a large extent. Neuroprotective drugs may improve the regeneration of cell membranes, improve blood brain barrier integrity, and reduce neuroinflammation leading to secondary damage to the injured brain. Our clinical experience and data suggest that the combined administration of Citicoline and Cerebrolysin may contribute to better recovery, without relevant side effects. However, it would be important to validate these results by means of a controlled, prospective study.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess whether the GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope may be a reliable alternative to direct laryngoscopy in the prehospital setting. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, control trial with patient recruitment over 18 months. SETTING: Four study centers operating physician-staffed rescue helicopters or ground units in Austria and Norway. PATIENTS: Adult emergency patients requiring endotracheal intubation. INTERVENTIONS: Airway management strictly following a prehospital algorithm. First and second intubation attempt employing GlideScope or direct laryngoscopy as randomized; third attempt crossover. After three failed intubation attempts, immediate use of an extraglottic airway device. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 326 patients were enrolled. Success rate with the GlideScope (n = 168) versus direct laryngoscopy (n = 158) group was 61.9% (104/168) versus 96.2% (152/158), respectively (p < 0.001). The main reasons for failed GlideScope intubation were failure to advance the tube into the larynx or trachea (26/168 vs 0/158; p < 0.001) and/or impaired sight due to blood or fluids (21/168 vs 3/158; p < 0.001). When GlideScope intubation failed, direct laryngoscopy was successful in 61 of 64 patients (95.3%), whereas GlideScope enabled intubation in four of six cases (66.7%) where direct laryngoscopy failed (p = 0.055). In addition, GlideScope was prone to impaired visualization of the monitor because of ambient light (29/168; 17.3%). There was no correlation between success rates and body mass index, age, indication for airway management, or experience of the physicians, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Video laryngoscopy is an established tool in difficult airway management, but our results shed light on the specific problems in the emergency medical service setting. Prehospital use of the GlideScope was associated with some major problems, thus resulting in a lower intubation success rate when compared with direct laryngoscopy.
