Intracranial pressure monitoring with and without brain tissue oxygen pressure monitoring for severe traumatic brain injury in France (OXY-TC): an open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimisation of brain oxygenation might improve neurological outcome after traumatic brain injury. The OXY-TC trial explored the superiority of a strategy combining intracranial pressure and brain tissue oxygen pressure (PbtO2) monitoring over a strategy of intracranial pressure monitoring only to reduce the proportion of patients with poor neurological outcome at 6 months. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial at 25 French tertiary referral centres. Within 16 h of brain injury, patients with severe traumatic brain injury (aged 18-75 years) were randomly assigned via a website to be managed during the first 5 days of admission to the intensive care unit either by intracranial pressure monitoring only or by both intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring. Randomisation was stratified by age and centre. The study was open label due to the visibility of the intervention, but the statisticians and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The therapeutic objectives were to maintain intracranial pressure of 20 mm Hg or lower, and to keep PbtO2 (for those in the dual-monitoring group) above 20 mm Hg, at all times. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) score of 1-4 (death to upper severe disability) at 6 months after injury. The primary analysis was reported in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised all randomly assigned patients except those who withdrew consent or had protocol violations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02754063, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2016, and April 17, 2021, 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive either intracranial pressure monitoring only (n=160) or both intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring (n=158). 27 individuals with protocol violations were not included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Thus, the primary outcome was analysed for 144 patients in the intracranial pressure only group and 147 patients in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group. Compared with intracranial pressure monitoring only, intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring did not reduce the proportion of patients with GOSE score 1-4 (51% [95% CI 43-60] in the intracranial pressure monitoring only group vs 52% [43-60] in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring group; odds ratio 1·0 [95% CI 0·6-1·7]; p=0·95). Two (1%) of 144 participants in the intracranial pressure only group and 12 (8%) of 147 participants in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group had catheter dysfunction (p=0.011). Six patients (4%) in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group had an intracrebral haematoma related to the catheter, compared with none in the intracranial pressure only group (p=0.030). No significant difference in deaths was found between the two groups at 12 months after injury. At 12 months, 33 deaths had occurred in the intracranial pressure group: 25 (76%) were attributable to the brain trauma, six (18%) were end-of-life decisions, and two (6%) due to sepsis. 34 deaths had occured in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group at 12 months: 25 (74%) were attributable to the brain trauma, six (18%) were end-of-life decisions, one (3%) due to pulmonary embolism, one (3%) due to haemorrhagic shock, and one (3%) due to cardiac arrest. INTERPRETATION: After severe non-penetrating traumatic brain injury, intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring did not reduce the proportion of patients with poor neurological outcome at 6 months. Technical failures related to intracerebral catheter and intracerebral haematoma were more frequent in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group. Further research is needed to assess whether a targeted approach to multimodal brain monitoring could be useful in subgroups of patients with severe traumatic brain injury-eg, those with high intracranial pressure on admission. FUNDING: The French National Program for Clinical Research, La Fondation des Gueules Cassées, and Integra Lifesciences.

A One-Day Prospective National Observational Study on Sedation-Analgesia of Patients with Brain Injury in French Intensive Care Units: The SEDA-BIP-ICU (Sedation-Analgesia in Brain Injury Patient in ICU) Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation/analgesia is a daily challenge faced by intensivists managing patients with brain injury (BI) in intensive care units (ICUs). The optimization of sedation in patients with BI presents particular challenges. A choice must be made between the potential benefit of a rapid clinical evaluation and the potential exacerbation of intracranial hypertension in patients with impaired cerebral compliance. In the ICU, a pragmatic approach to the use of sedation/analgesia, including the optimal titration, management of multiple drugs, and use of any type of brain monitor, is needed. Our research question was as follows: the aim of the study is to identify what is the current daily practice regarding sedation/analgesia in the management of patients with BI in the ICU in France? METHODS: This study was composed of two parts. The first part was a descriptive survey of sedation practices and characteristics in 30 French ICUs and 27 academic hospitals specializing in care for patients with BI. This first step validates ICU participation in data collection regarding sedation-analgesia practices. The second part was a 1-day prospective cross-sectional snapshot of all characteristics and prescriptions of patients with BI. RESULTS: On the study day, among the 246 patients with BI, 106 (43%) had a brain monitoring device and 74 patients (30%) were sedated. Thirty-nine of the sedated patients (53%) suffered from intracranial hypertension, 14 patients (19%) suffered from agitation and delirium, and 7 patients (9%) were sedated because of respiratory failure. Fourteen patients (19%) no longer had a formal indication for sedation. In 60% of the sedated patients, the sedatives were titrated by nurses based on sedation scales. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was used in 80% of the patients, and the Behavioral Pain Scale was used in 92%. The common sedatives and opioids used were midazolam (58.1%), propofol (40.5%), and sufentanil (67.5%). The cerebral monitoring devices available in the participating ICUs were transcranial Doppler ultrasound (100%), intracranial and intraventricular pressure monitoring (93.3%), and brain tissue oxygenation (60%). Cerebral monitoring by one or more monitoring devices was performed in 62% of the sedated patients. This proportion increased to 74% in the subgroup of patients with intracranial hypertension, with multimodal cerebral monitoring in 43.6%. The doses of midazolam and sufentanil were lower in sedated patients managed based on a sedation/analgesia scale. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam and sufentanil are frequently used, often in combination, in French ICUs instead of alternative drugs. In our study, cerebral monitoring was performed in more than 60% of the sedated patients, although that proportion is still insufficient. Future efforts should stress the use of multiple monitoring modes and adherence to the indications for sedation to improve care of patients with BI. Our study suggests that the use of sedation and analgesia scales by nurses involved in the management of patients with BI could decrease the dosages of midazolam and sufentanil administered. Updated guidelines are needed for the management of sedation/analgesia in patients with BI.

Psychrobacter sanguinis: an unusual bacterium for nosocomial meningitis.

We report the first case of postneurosurgical meningitis due to Psychrobacter sanguinis, identified only by 16S rRNA analysis. Psychrobacter spp. usually live in deep sea environments and cold habitats. Despite a strict questioning of the patient and the medical staff, we did not find the source of this bacterium.