Year in Review: Synopsis of Selected Articles in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care from 2024

Abstract

This review is a synopsis of selected articles from neuroscience, neuroanesthesia, and neurocritical care from 2024 (January–November 2024). The journals reviewed include anesthesia journals, critical care medicine journals, neurosurgical journals, and high-impact medical journals such as the Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, and Stroke. We identified articles that are randomized clinical trials, large retrospective and prospective observational studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis relevant to clinical neuroanesthesia and neurocritical care practice. We excluded the basic science research articles, case reports, and case series. The summary of important articles will serve to update the knowledge of neuroanesthesiologists and other perioperative physicians who provide care to neurosurgical and neurocritical cases.

Keywords

neurocritical care - neuroanesthesia - craniotomy - stroke

Cerebrovascular Disease

Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and Delayed Cerebral Ischemia

Cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) are common and potentially devastating complications of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and are associated with poor neurological outcomes. However, high-quality evidence supporting various aspects of monitoring and management of DCI is limited.[1] [2]

Picetti et al conducted an international clinical practice survey aimed at identifying strategies for diagnosing, monitoring, preventing, and managing cerebral vasospasm associated with DCI in aSAH patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (The Mantra Study).[3] The survey was conducted online and involved 292 medical professionals from 240 centers spanning 38 countries. The survey questionnaire was designed to identify methods of diagnosing, monitoring, preventing, and managing DCI related to cerebral vasospasm at the respondents' respective centers.

Neurological examination was most frequently used to diagnose delayed neurological deficits caused by vasospasm-related DCI in awake aSAH patients or those able to tolerate interruption of sedation (95.2%), followed by transcranial Doppler (TCD) (60.3%) and intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (29.5%). In unconscious patients or those unable to tolerate sedation interruption, TCD was the diagnostic tool of choice (68.5%). In both scenarios, computed tomography (CT) angiography was most used to confirm vasospasm as the cause of neurological deficits related to DCI (58.6% in the former; 54.5% in the latter). Bedside monitoring for vasospasm in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients was routinely done using TCD by most respondents (61% for the former, 63.4% for the latter). A large majority of respondents administer nimodipine for DCI prophylaxis. Treatment of angiographic vasospasm was generally initiated only if associated with clinical signs. Few utilized multimodal neuromonitoring to guide therapy. Most respondents induced arterial hypertension as the first step to treat vasospasm, with the vasopressor of choice being noradrenaline. The most common second step in treating vasospasm was intra-arterial nimodipine administered in the angiography suite. Despite it being an international survey, the number of respondents was low. Most respondents were from higher-income nations; therefore, the result of the survey reflects practices in more advanced health care systems. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the heterogenicity in monitoring and management practices of DCI related to vasospasm in aSAH patients and highlights the need to develop protocols based on resource availability.

Blood Pressure Management in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Stroke Association (ASA) have developed guidelines recommending elevation of blood pressure (BP) to reduce the progression of DCI.[4] However, no large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated this, or is there a clear definition of induced hypertension. Betteridge et al performed a post hoc analysis on data collected from the prospective multicenter observational study of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (PROMOTE-SAH).[5] The purpose of this study was to outline BP management goals (setting of a minimum systolic BP [SBP] target or application of induced hypertension) in these patients and evaluate whether setting BP management targets was independently linked to functional outcomes at 6 months. Three hundred and fifty-seven patients with acute aSAH requiring ICU admission were enrolled in 11 neurosurgical referral centers in Australia and New Zealand. BP management goals were defined as subjects having either (1) a minimum SBP target recorded or (2) classified as receiving induced hypertension for the management of DCI or vasospasm. The primary study outcome was a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of ≥ 4 (dead or disabled) at 6 months. The study showed that BP management goals are commonly “prescribed” to aSAH patients admitted to ICUs across Australia and New Zealand (75% of the study cohort). These goals were applied regardless of the presence of DCI and/or vasospasm. The overall population mean minimum SBP target was 130 mm Hg (128–133 mm Hg; confidence interval [CI] 95%). The mean (interquartile range) minimum SBP target was significantly higher in patients with DCI/vasospasm (144 [142, 147] mm Hg) than for those without (124 [122, 126] mm Hg; p < 0.001). The study only reported the setting of BP goals rather than the actual BP achieved, which is one of its limitations. With regards to the primary outcome, the unadjusted analysis demonstrated an association between the setting of goals for BP management and reduced “death or disability” at 6 months. However, they found that this benefit did not persist with adjusted analysis. The researchers concluded that although BP management goals in critically ill patients with aSAH are common in Australia and New Zealand, its impact in various clinical scenarios remains unclear.

Statin Treatment in Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Considerable research has been done on various classes of drugs to investigate their roles in reducing the risk of DCI in patients with aSAH. One of the classes of drugs is statins for their antispastic effect on affected vessels through activation of endothelial nitric oxide expression.[6] The 2023 AHA/ ASA SAH guideline does not recommend statins as routine therapy in this population due to the lack of strong evidence demonstrating its efficacy on DCI and mortality.[4]

Wang et al conducted a network meta-analysis that sought to investigate the therapeutic benefits of different statin treatments in patients presenting with aSAH.[7] The investigators analyzed 13 two-group trials involving 1,885 patients where different doses of atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin versus a placebo treatment were administered for various durations. They observed that high-dose therapy (pravastatin 40 mg, simvastatin 80 mg) was associated with reduced risk of DCI compared with placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.80). Their analysis also suggested that short-term therapy (2 weeks) might confer more benefits than long-term therapy (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.76). However, the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate, at best. The authors were also unable to perform subgroup analysis or meta-regression due to insufficient data. Further research, specifically ones featuring extended follow-up periods, is imperative to validate these findings.

Risk Factors for Delayed Postoperative Hemorrhage after Brain Arteriovenous Malformation Resection

One of the most feared complications of microsurgical resection of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) is delayed postoperative hemorrhage (DPH), as it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.[8] Identification of risk factors for DPH could allow clinicians to take preemptive measures to reduce its incidence. Yan et al conducted a retrospective study to identify the risk factors for DPH in patients who underwent microsurgical resection for AVM.[9] A total of 1,284 patients were included in the study. DPH was defined as postoperative intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) into the AVM bed within 14 days after AVM resection that resulted in neurological decline or reoperation for evacuation. The incidence of DPH in this series was 1.4%. Univariate analyses identified several characteristics in vascular architecture that were more likely to be associated with DPH events, which include a giant nidus, a nidus involved in the eloquent area, a periventricular nidus, and a nidus accompanied by venous ectasia. The multivariate analysis identified maximum AVM diameter (odds ratio [OR] 1.44 per 1-cm increase, 95% CI 1.13–1.83) and periventricular lesion (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.33–12.59) as independent factors associated with DPH. The cutoff value for the maximum AVM diameter was 4.15 cm. Patients with an AVM with a maximum diameter of ≥ 4.15 cm had a higher DPH risk after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 5.79, 95% CI 2.01–16.67; p < 0.01). Similarly, the incidence of DPH for patients with periventricular lesions was higher than that for patients without periventricular lesions (HR 4.50, 95% CI 1.77–11.40; p < 0.01). In addition, the authors advocate the following strategies, namely, BP control, preoperative embolization, intraoperative monitoring, and careful patient selection to reduce the incidence of DPH in high-risk patients.

Decompressive Craniectomy for Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) has been shown to reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes in patients with malignant middle cerebral artery infarction.[10] It remains unknown whether DC is beneficial in patients with spontaneous severe deep ICH. The SWITCH (Swiss trial of decompressive craniectomy versus best medical treatment of spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage) trial investigated whether DC combined with the best medical treatment improves outcomes at 6 months in adults (19–75 years) with severe deep ICH involving the basal ganglia or thalamus, compared with the best medical treatment alone.[11] The study was conducted across 42 stroke centers in nine European countries. The primary outcome of this trial was a poor clinical score (mRS 5–6) at 180 days. However, the trial was stopped early due to funding constraints, with only 201 (out of a planned 300) participants enrolled between October 2014 and April 2023. Of the 197 participants who provided delayed consent, 96 received DC plus the best medical treatment, and 101 received the best medical treatment alone. At 180 days, 44% of the DC plus best medical treatment group and 58% of the medical treatment alone group had a poor mRS score (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.01, adjusted risk difference −13%, 95% CI −26 to 0, p = 0.057). In the per-protocol analysis, 47% of the DC plus best medical treatment group and 60% of the medical treatment group had poor outcomes (aRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58–1.00). Severe adverse events occurred in 41 and 44% of participants in the two groups, respectively. The results suggest weak evidence that DC plus the best medical treatment may be superior to medical treatment alone. However, survival was associated with severe disability, irrespective of treatment groups. The findings of SWITCH apply specifically to a subgroup of people with severe deep ICH and cannot be generalized to people with ICH in other locations. There were many limitations in this study, including underpowered to detect significant differences, uneven randomization rates across the sites, potential changes in standards of care, and issues with blinding. Further research is needed to clarify the potential benefits and risks of DC for this population.

Anesthesia for Endovascular Thrombectomy

The choice of anesthetic technique (general anesthesia [GA] vs. conscious sedation [CS]) for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a topic of continuing debate. Consensus statements from the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care and guidelines from the AHA/ASA recommend an individualized choice of anesthetic technique.[12] [13]

A recent meta-analysis by Al-Salihi et al comprehensively reviewed 8 RCTs with a total of 1,203 patients who underwent EVT for AIS.[14] In this meta-analysis, the authors analyzed functional independence outcomes (mRS 0–2), recanalization rates, mortality, and change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (24 hours and after 7 days). The study showed that GA had better recanalization than CS (RR and 95% CI were 1.13 [1.07, 1.20], p > 0.001). Interestingly, despite this significant difference in recanalization rates, functional independence (mRS 0–2) showed no significant difference between GA and CS (RR and 95% CI were 1.10 [0.95, 1.27], p = 0.19). Excellent recovery (mRS 0–1) and poor recovery (mRS 3) outcomes were also similar between the two groups. Furthermore, the authors' analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between GA and CS regarding mortality rates during hospitalization or at 3 months, or with NIHSS score at the 24-hour and 7-day time points. The observed superior recanalization rates have noteworthy clinical implications. However, due to the lack of significant differences in the other outcomes and its limited sample size, further large-scale RCTs are necessary to validate these findings and inform clinical decision-making.

Although studies have demonstrated the noninferiority of GA compared with CS for EVT, the choice of anesthetic agent and intraoperative hemodynamic targets during GA are areas of ongoing debate.[14] Crimmins et al investigated whether clinical outcomes in patients undergoing EVT for AIS differ based on the anesthetic agent (propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia vs. volatile agents).[15] They also evaluated the impact of mean arterial pressure (MAP) thresholds on outcomes. In this retrospective observational study, 93 patients who received propofol or volatile GA for EVT between 2015 and 2018 were included in this study. There was no difference in the rate of favorable outcome (mRS 0–2) between the volatile and propofol groups (48.8% vs. 55.8%, respectively; p = 0.5). Ninety-day mortality was lower in patients receiving propofol (11.5%) than in those receiving volatile GA (29.3%) (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.11–0.94; p = 0.03); this mortality benefit was greater in patients that did not receive intravenous thrombolysis before EVT (OR for survival, 6; 95% CI 1.13–31.74). There was no difference in MAP between groups but a (nonsignificant) trend toward the benefit of MAP < 90 mm Hg but > 70 mm Hg. Significant hypotension (MAP < 70 mm Hg) is associated with worse outcomes. This study was limited by its retrospective and observational nature, which introduces the potential for bias. Hence, the results of this study are hypothesis-generating, highlighting the need for a larger RCT to clarify the impact of anesthetic agents on outcomes after EVT under GA.

Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering after Reperfusion Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke

BP management in patients with AIS undergoing reperfusion therapy remains an important, yet unresolved, issue. Failure of autoregulation in the acutely injured brain can result in significant hyper- or hypoperfusion with the slightest fluctuation in systemic BP.[16] Several RCTs investigated the efficacy of intensive BP lowering (IBPL) versus standard BP control (SBPC) post reperfusion therapy. However, discrepancies in their findings raise doubts about the safety and potential benefits of IBPL after reperfusion therapy. Chen and Zhu published a systematic review and meta-analysis designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IBPL after reperfusion therapy in AIS.[17] The endpoints of this analysis were functional outcomes (mRS score), symptomatic ICH, death within 90 days, and recurrent ischemic stroke. Seven eligible studies with a study population of 4,499 were analyzed. This population comprised of 2,218 patients in the IBPL group and 2,281 patients in the SBPC group.

Patients undergoing IBPL after EVT exhibited less favorable functional outcomes compared with those receiving SBPC. Worse mRS scores were seen in the SBP < 140 mm Hg and SBP < 120 mm Hg subgroups. However, there were no differences between groups in the SBP < 130 mm Hg subgroup. Though the IBPL group exhibited a lower incidence of ICH in the EVT group, this did not translate into a long-term functional outcome. No discernible benefits were observed in other endpoints of this meta-analysis for the EVT subgroup. This study is limited by the fact that nearly all the study designs were open label, and only outcome blinding was performed.

Traumatic Brain Injury

Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

Anemia in the context of traumatic brain injury (TBI) carries the threat of worsening cerebral ischemia. Red blood cell transfusion is a common method of treating anemia, but transfusions can lead to other adverse events. A 1999 trial (TRICC trial) comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in ICU patients showed no mortality benefit of maintaining high hemoglobin (Hb) levels.[18] However, this trial was not limited to patients with TBI. The Hemoglobin Transfusion Threshold in Traumatic Brain Injury Optimization (HEMOTION) trial by Turgeon et al was conducted to compare the effects of a liberal strategy (transfusion trigger Hb ≤ 10.0 g/dL) with a restrictive strategy (transfusion trigger Hb ≤ 7.0 g/dL) on mortality and long-term functional and patient-centered outcomes in adult patients with moderate-to-severe TBI.[19] This RCT was performed at 34 centers with 742 patients randomized. The study found no significant difference in the risk of an unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcomes Scale Extended [GOS-E] ≤ 4) at 6 months (68.4% of patients in the liberal-strategy group vs. 73.5% in the restrictive-strategy group). The authors also observed no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (death in ICU 17.1% vs. 15.3%; death in hospital 23% vs. 21.5%; death at 6 months 26.8% vs. 26.3%). Modern ICU practice generally favors restrictive transfusion strategies primarily based on the TRICC trial. The HEMOTION study challenges this approach in critically ill TBI patients. It was not, however, designed to assess the noninferiority of a more restrictive transfusion strategy, so the possibility of harm with such a strategy cannot be excluded.

Therapeutic Hypothermia and Traumatic Brain Injury

TBI triggers a cascade of events, such as excitotoxicity, neuroinflammation, apoptosis, free radical production, seizure activity, and other sequelae, that cause secondary brain injury. These harmful processes are temperature-dependent and are shown to be mitigated by therapeutic hypothermia (TH).[20] Previous studies have indicated that TH may be linked to serious complications and strong evidence on the clinical utility of TH in comparison to normothermia in TBI is lacking.[21] Martyniuk et al conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 RCTs with 3,909 patients to synthesize the available clinical data comparing the use of TH with the use of normothermia in TBI.[21] Pooled analysis revealed a significant benefit of TH on mortality and functional outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96, I ² = 41% and RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67–0.88, I ² = 68%, respectively). However, subgroup analysis based on risk of bias showed that only studies with a high risk of bias maintained this benefit. When analyzed by complications, TH had an increased rate of pneumonia (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10–1.40, I ² = 32%), coagulation abnormalities (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09–2.44, I ² = 55%), and cardiac arrhythmias (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.05–3.01, I ² = 21%). When the studies were separated by the risk of bias (low vs. high), there were no differences in these complications between the two groups. The studies included in this meta-analysis had substantial heterogeneity, and variable risk of bias, and some had large confidence intervals, which reduced the quality of evidence. Given that studies at low risk of bias failed to show any benefit of TH compared with normothermia in terms of mortality and functional outcome, the authors concluded that this study does not support the use of TH in severe TBI.

Complications of Intracranial Multimodal Monitoring

Physiological monitors of brain function (for example, tissue oxygenation [PbtO2], microdialysis, regional cerebral blood flow [CBF], and intracranial electroencephalogram [EEG] electrodes) are increasingly being used by neurocritical care physicians for early detection and prevention of secondary insults in patients with acute brain injury (ABI).[22] Concerns about intracranial multimodal monitoring (iMMM) invasiveness arise due to limited evidence from retrospective single-center studies, questioning its clinical significance and safety.[23]

Barrit et al performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the incidence and types of complications related to iMMM.[24] The authors included 22 articles reporting 1,206 patients who underwent 1,434 iMMM placements. A total of 54 postoperative intracranial hemorrhages (pooled rate of 4%; 95% CI 0–10%; I ² 86%, p < 0.01 [random-effects model]) were reported, along with 46 misplacements (pooled rate of 6%; 95% CI 1–12%; I ² 78%, p < 0.01) and 16 central nervous system infections (pooled rate of 0.43%; 95% CI 0–2%; I ² 64%, p < 0.01). Other complications reported included system breaking, dislodgement, intracranial bone fragments, and pneumocephalus. High-level evidence in the literature was lacking, and there was significant heterogeneity due to a lack of standardized definitions in reporting iMMM experiences. The authors attempted to mitigate this by limiting eligibility criteria. This resulted in them only being able to perform a very constrained risk factor analysis. Nevertheless, this review underscores the importance of exercising caution in the application of iMMM, emphasizing the need to improve safety protocols and patient selection criteria.

Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter and Intracranial Pressure

Elevated ICP or intracranial hypertension (IH) is a critical condition affecting both pediatric and adult patients, associated with high morbidity and mortality. Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential to optimize management and improve outcomes. While invasive techniques remain the gold standard for estimating ICP, optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) measurement via ultrasonography has emerged as a practical, noninvasive alternative with real-time properties.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy of ONSD ultrasound for detecting raised ICP in pediatric patients. Rajendran et al included 25 studies (1,591 patients and 3,143 ONSD measurements).[25] The analysis revealed a pooled sensitivity of 92% (86–96%) and specificity of 89% (77–96%), with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 8.6 and 0.08, respectively. Most studies used a threshold of 4.5 mm or higher for children over 1 year old and 4.0 mm for those under 1 year old to diagnose elevated ICP. Invasive gold standards, such as external ventricular drain or lumbar puncture, demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 94 and 84%, while noninvasive methods (clinical signs and symptoms, CT, and ONSD ultrasound) achieved 88 and 95%. Studies excluding infants had higher specificity (98%) compared with those including them (84%). Etiology also impacted results, with studies focusing on nontraumatic causes yielding higher specificity (98%) than mixed trauma studies (84%). Limitations of this study included methodological heterogeneity and publication bias. Despite these limitations, the findings of this study demonstrate a high diagnostic value of ONSD ultrasonography as a noninvasive tool for detecting elevated ICP, recognizing it as a reliable diagnostic option for pediatric ICP monitoring.

Similarly, another systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the accuracy of ONSD sonography for detecting IH in adult patients with TBI.[26] The meta-analysis included 10 studies involving 512 patients, with pooled sensitivity and specificity of 85% (95% CI 79–89%) and 88% (95% CI 80–93%), respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.0 (95% CI 4.1–12.0) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.12–0.25), with an area under receiver operating curve of 0.91, indicating high diagnostic accuracy. Although intracranial catheters remain the gold standard for measuring ICP, ONSD represents a reliable, noninvasive alternative. This study identified an average cutoff value of 5.8 mm, with optimal ranges between 5.0 and 5.9 mm for elevated ICP, which means that once ONSD exceeds 5.8 mm, sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of IH are high. However, significant variability in cutoff values across all included studies highlights the need for standardization. In conclusion, ONSD sonography is a noninvasive and effective tool for detecting IH in TBI patients. Further research is recommended to standardize protocols and enhance their applicability.

In addition, there were two excellent review articles on the topic of ONSD published in 2024. Martínez-Palacios et al published a scoping review on using ONSD for ICP monitoring in TBI.[27] Hirzallah et al published an international consensus statement on ONSD imaging and measurement focusing on the quality criteria checklist.[28]

Pharmacological Agents

Noradrenaline and Cerebral Blood Flow

Noradrenaline is a vasopressor commonly used to treat hypotension in various clinical scenarios. The effects of noradrenaline on CBF remain unresolved.

Meng et al published a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the effects of noradrenaline on CBF in three distinct populations: healthy individuals, patients with TBI, and patients suffering from critical illness.[29] Twenty-eight eligible studies were included—8 studies on healthy humans, 9 on patients with TBI, and 11 on patients with a critical illness. In healthy subjects and noncritical/non-TBI patients, noradrenaline did not significantly alter CBF velocity (CBFv) (−1.7%, 95% CI −4.7 to 1.3%) despite a 24.1% (95% CI 19.4–28.7%) increase in MAP. In patients with TBI, it increased CBFv by 21.5% (95% CI 11.0–32.0%), and MAP by 33.8% (95% CI 14.7–52.9%). In critically ill patients, noradrenaline significantly increased CBFv (20.0%, 95% CI 9.7–30.3%), along with a 32.4% (95% CI 25.0–39.9%) increase in MAP. Their analyses indicate preserved cerebral autoregulation in healthy individuals and patients without critical illness or TBI, while suggesting impaired cerebral autoregulation in those with TBI or critical illness. Additionally, they demonstrated that the efficacy of noradrenaline in enhancing CBF is contingent upon not only the status of a patient's cerebral autoregulation but also the magnitude of the increase in MAP and the patient's pretreatment BP. Further research investigating outcomes specifically related to the use of noradrenaline is warranted to further define the critical BP range for individual patients.

Tranexamic Acid in Neurosurgery

The use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in neurosurgery has expanded in recent years. While its efficacy in minimizing blood loss and reducing the need for blood transfusion continues to be an area of active research, concerns regarding its safety profile have been highlighted. Major concerns include (1) elevated risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) and (2) the risk for postoperative seizures, attributed to the inhibition of γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors and glycine receptors, which increase neuronal excitability.[30]

Li et al have conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial conducted on the safety of a single 20 mg/kg dose of TXA in 600 adult patients undergoing supratentorial meningioma resection.[31] As part of the anesthetic management, patients were premedicated with midazolam, followed by sufentanil and propofol boluses for induction. Anesthetic maintenance was provided through a combined intravenous and inhalation approach, with a propofol infusion of 3 to 8 mg/kg/h, remifentanil at 0.1 to 0.2 µg/kg/min, and volatile agents not exceeding 0.5 minimum alveolar concentration. The primary outcome, postoperative seizures within 7 days, occurred in 4.3% of the TXA group and 3.7% of the placebo group (normal saline), representing a nonsignificant risk difference of 0.7%, within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.5% (p = 0.001). Seizure onset occurred at a median of 2 days, with no differences in subtypes or recurrence between groups. Secondary outcomes, including VTEs (8.7% in TXA vs. 7% in placebo) and ischemic events (1.3% in TXA vs. 0.3% in placebo), showed no significant differences. Additionally, nonseizure-related complications, such as hematoma, hydrocephalus, and infection, as well as postoperative anemia and Hb changes, were comparable across groups. The study found no significant reductions in intraoperative blood loss or differences in the use of blood products, hospitalization duration, ICU stays, or reoperation rates. In summary, a single dose of TXA does not increase the risk of seizures, or significantly reduce bleeding. Limitations included the single-center design, reliance on clinical seizure assessment without systematic EEG use, and the conservative TXA dosing to minimize seizure risk.

On the other hand, a systematic review conducted by Brown et al included 28 studies (4,461 patients), providing an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of TXA across a range of neurosurgical indications.[32] Within these studies, six focused specifically on intracranial tumor resections, such as meningiomas, using a standardized dosing protocol with an intravenous loading dose of 20 mg/kg over 20 minutes followed by an intraoperative maintenance infusion at 1 mg/kg/hour. TXA significantly reduced blood loss by an average of 282.48 mL (p < 0.01) and decreased the need for transfusions (OR 0.33, p < 0.01) without increasing the risk of VTEs or postoperative seizures. This reduction in blood loss and transfusion requirements was consistent across various pathologies (meningiomas, vestibular schwannomas, gliomas, pituitary adenomas, and pediatric choroid plexus papillomas). In patients with aSAH, TXA effectively decreased the risk of rebleeding (RR 0.96, p < 0.01) but did not reduce vasospasm rates (p = 0.27) or improve long-term neurological outcomes. In pediatric craniosynostosis surgeries, lower dosing protocols (10 mg/kg loading and 5 mg/kg/hour maintenance) were employed. TXA significantly reduced blood loss by 9.06 mL/kg (p = 0.01) and minimized transfusion requirements (OR 0.34, p = 0.04). Moreover, perioperative complication rates, including VTEs and other adverse events, did not differ significantly between TXA and control groups (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.22–1.01; p > 0.05). Overall, concerns regarding seizure risk attributed to TXA were not significant and probably mitigated by propofol. Limitations of the review include a lack of standardization in expected blood loss calculations and potential sampling bias. These findings highlight TXA's value as a hemostatic agent in neurosurgery, emphasizing the importance of dosing regimens and patient selection to optimize outcomes.

Dexmedetomidine in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care

Dexmedetomidine is used widely in neuroanesthesia for its favorable clinical profile, especially for CS during awake craniotomy. Akavipat et al have published a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine with propofol-based sedation for awake craniotomy.[33] A total of 5 RCTs, 3 prospective cohort studies, 11 retrospective cohort studies, and 3 case series comprising 2,127 patients were analyzed. The outcome measures were surgical outcome at discharge, the success rate of the surgery, conversion to GA, and perioperative anesthetic complications. There were no statistically significant differences in surgical outcomes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94–1.24), conversion to GA (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.05–3.83), respiratory complications (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.12–1.27), and intraoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08–1.14) between the groups. However, the intraoperative seizure was higher in the dexmedetomidine group (RR 4.26, 95% CI 1.49–12.16). They found that dexmedetomidine is a safe anesthetic regimen over propofol alone and a propofol-narcotic-based anesthetic. However, the limitations suggest larger RCTs are required to prove the findings further.

The use of dexmedetomidine sedation in ICUs is popular as it mimics the natural sleep state, showing an EEG signal pattern similar to second-stage nonrapid eye movement. However, there are very few studies on the use of dexmedetomidine sedation in patients with TBI undergoing mechanical ventilation. Liu et al conducted a retrospective cohort study examining the sedative practices for patients with moderate to severe TBI undergoing mechanical ventilation in the neuro-ICU.[34] They examined the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure (within the first 5 days of ICU admission) with clinical outcomes. Among the 19,751 eligible patients, the study found that propofol (82.7%) was the most commonly used sedative within the first 2 days of hospitalization followed by benzodiazepines (26.0%), dexmedetomidine (6.5%), and ketamine (0.9%). With propensity score matching, early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with reduced odds of hospital mortality (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47–0.74; p < 0.0001), increased risk for liberation from mechanical ventilation (HR, 1.20; 95% CI 1.09–1.33; p = 0.0003), and reduced hospital length of stay (HR, 1.11; 95% CI 1.01–1.22; p = 0.033). Exposure to early dexmedetomidine was not associated with higher odds of discharge to home, vasopressor utilization after the first 2 days of admission, or increased hospital costs. This study cautiously supports the use of early dexmedetomidine sedation in the management of patients with TBI and there is a need for further confirmatory RCTs to better inform optimal sedation for patients with TBI.

Following this, the authors of the above study also conducted two more studies on the use of dexmedetomidine sedation in patients with moderate to severe TBI. The first study examined the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure (within the first 5 days of ICU admission) with the primary outcome of the 6-month GOS-E. The secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and 6-month mortality.[35] The study showed that exposure to early dexmedetomidine was not associated with a favorable GOS-E score (OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.80–2.09). Regarding the secondary outcomes, patients who were exposed to early dexmedetomidine during admission experienced a decreased 6-month DRS score (adjusted mean difference [MD], −3.04; 95% CI −5.88 to −0.21). However, length of hospital stays, the odds of being discharged alive, and 6-month mortality rate were similar between the groups. A post hoc analysis in the subgroup of the patients who required ICP monitoring found that early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with a higher 6-month GOS-E score (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.24–3.80), better DRS score (adjusted MD, −5.81; 95% CI −9.38 to −2.25), and reduced length of hospital stay. In summary, the investigators concluded that early dexmedetomidine exposure was not associated with improved 6-month functional outcomes in the entire population, although may have clinical benefit in patients with indications for ICP monitoring.

The second study investigated the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure with biomarkers of brain injury in patients with TBI.[36] There has been a growing interest in the utilization of blood-based biomarkers for their potential in diagnosing and prognosticating TBI. Of particular interest are biomarkers associated with brain injury including glial fibrillary acidic protein, ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1, neuron-specific enolase, S100 calcium-binding protein, and the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study using prospective data from the Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study (TRACK-TB). The outcome measures were blood-based brain injury biomarker levels obtained on day 3 and days 5 and 14 following injury. The study showed that there were no differences in the biomarker levels between pre- (day 1) and postexposure (days 3, 5, 14) to dexmedetomidine. Similarly, there were no differences between those exposed to dexmedetomidine and those not exposed. Hence, this study concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that dexmedetomidine exposure contributes to neuronal injury, supporting its use as a sedative without concern for harmful effects on the brain.

On the same topic, Hatfield et al have recently published a scoping review on the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of dexmedetomidine for sedation in patients with TBI.[37]

Spontaneous ICH is a severe neurological condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. Elevated BP, a common occurrence after ICH, is an independent predictor of poor outcomes. Hence, BP control is a critical component of the initial management of patients with ICH. Antihypertensives are often used as the first line of drugs for BP control. Dong et al conducted a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, superiority RCT to investigate the use of dexmedetomidine in the early BP management in patients with ICH.[38] The rationale for this approach was that BP control via analgesia, sedation, and antisympathetic treatment might yield superior outcomes. A total of 338 patients (167 intervention; 171 control) were included on the intention-to-treat basis. The authors included adult patients with spontaneous ICH and a symptom onset within 24 hours and with a SBP of 150 mm Hg or greater at least in two consecutive occasions. Patients in the intervention group received remifentanil combined with dexmedetomidine for analgesia and sedation, while the control group was treated with urapidil, nicardipine, or other antihypertensive agents based on guidelines and expert recommendations. The intervention aimed to reduce SBP to 110 to 140 mm Hg within 1 hour of treatment initiation and maintain this target during the ICU stay, for up to 7 days. The primary outcome was the SBP control 1 hour after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included BP variability, hematoma growth, sedation and analgesia scores, neurologic function, length of ICU stay, number of days on mechanical ventilation, and disability/mortality rates at 28 and 90 days. Major disability was defined as a mRS score of 3 to 5 at day 28 and day 90 after randomization. Study results showed that the SBP control rate at 1 hour was significantly higher in the intervention group when compared with the control group (62.7% vs. 39.8%; difference 23.2%; OR 2.59; p < 0.001). In addition, the intervention group exhibited reduced BP variability and better Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores compared with the control group. However, there were no significant differences between groups regarding other secondary outcome measures. This trial demonstrated that dexmedetomidine-based BP management achieved rapid, stable, and effective BP reduction without increasing mortality, outperforming standard guideline-based treatments. These findings suggest a promising alternative approach to BP control in ICH patients.

Chronic incisional pain is a common postoperative complication, with the incidence of chronic postcraniotomy headache ranging from 0 to 65%.[39] Most of this pain (55–79%) is incisional in nature. Opioids remain the primary treatment for acute postcraniotomy pain, while nonopioid perioperative strategies, such as scalp nerve blocks and dexmedetomidine, are also utilized. Zeng et al conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate dexmedetomidine's efficacy in preventing chronic incisional pain.[40] The study included 252 patients, with 128 receiving dexmedetomidine and 124 receiving placebos. Anesthesia management was similar between both groups. Anesthesia was induced with propofol, sufentanil, and rocuronium or cisatracurium. Scalp nerve blocks were done after the induction of anesthesia. Sufentanil boluses (0.1–0.2 μg/kg) were given to attenuate noxious stimuli responses during surgery. Remifentanil infusion (0.1–0.2 mcg/kg/min) was used intraoperatively to maintain circulatory stability ( ± 20% baseline). Patient-controlled analgesia with sufentanil was used for postoperative analgesia. Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group received a 0.6 mcg/kg bolus followed by a 0.4 mcg/kg/h maintenance dose until dural closure, while the placebo group was administered normal saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of chronic incisional pain at 3 months postcraniotomy. Secondary outcomes included a numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, sleep quality, and side effects. Results showed that the incidence of chronic incisional pain at 3 months was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (23.4% vs. 42.7%; RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38–0.80; p = 0.001). Chronic NRS pain scores were also lower in the dexmedetomidine group (p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in intraoperative adverse events, postoperative complications, or postanesthesia care unit stay length. The authors concluded that intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion significantly reduces the incidence of chronic incisional pain and improves acute pain scores after elective brain tumor resections.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs for Postcraniotomy Pain

Postoperative pain after craniotomy can be quite challenging and can lead to negative psychological, physical, and physiological adverse events. However, opioid use for pain management can hinder neurological assessments, cause respiratory depression and increase the risk of opioid dependence. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics with opioid-sparing effects and are part of multimodal pain management regimens. On the other hand, the increased risk of bleeding with NSAIDs often restricts the routine use of NSAIDs for postcraniotomy pain. Perez et al conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the safety of NSAIDs use in the immediate postoperative period in adults who had craniotomy for tumor resection.[41] The primary outcome was hemorrhage-related complications within 30 days postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included minimal hemorrhage, acute kidney injury, extracranial hemorrhage, and oral morphine equivalents within 48 hours. Among patients meeting inclusion criteria, only 9.6% received NSAIDs. There were no significant differences in postoperative hemorrhage risks between the NSAID and control groups, except for higher opioid use in the NSAID group. In their meta-analysis, the estimated RR of postoperative hematoma requiring reoperation in NSAID users was 0.77 (95% CI 0.46–1.31, p = 0.32; I ² = 31%). The study concluded that NSAIDs do not increase hemorrhage risk following craniotomy for tumor resection and may offer a viable alternative to limit opioid use. However, the retrospective design, small sample size, and low incidence of reoperation limit generalizability.

On a similar topic, Harrison et al have published a review article on the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of NSAIDs for postcraniotomy pain management in adult and pediatric patients.[42]

Others

Anesthesia Management of Patients with Chronic Subdural Hematoma

Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition, particularly in the elderly population, with an increasing incidence due to aging demographics and the widespread use of anticoagulants. Surgical interventions are often indicated in cases of symptomatic or enlarging cSDH. The choice of anesthesia, local anesthesia (LA) with or without sedation or GA, remains a subject of ongoing debate. Ahn et al conducted a retrospective study of 383 patients undergoing burr hole craniotomy and drain insertion for cSDH to analyze the impact of anesthesia type (LA, n = 63 vs. GA, n = 320) on surgical and medical outcomes.[43] Baseline characteristics, including demographics and comorbidities, were similar between groups, except for a higher proportion of males in the LA group (79.8% vs. 63.4%, p = 0.041). Overall, there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes, such as postoperative hematoma thickness on CT scan (9.6 mm in the LA group vs. 9.0 mm in the GA group, p = 0.726), midline shift (p = 0.3), pneumocephalus, ICU stay duration, or recurrence rates (12.7% in LA vs. 11.2% in GA, p = 0.910). Among medical morbidities, pneumonia was the most prevalent (3.8% in the GA group vs. 1.6% in the LA group); however, both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that LA did not reduce the incidence of pneumonia (OR 0.41, p = 0.401). The study concluded that anesthesia type did not influence outcomes. However, the study's sample size and retrospective design highlight the importance of selecting anesthesia based on individualized patient profiles.

Extending this debate, a systematic review and meta-analysis compared postoperative outcomes after cSDH evacuation under LA and GA (12 studies with 1,734 patients).[44] LA demonstrated significant advantages, with lower intraoperative complications (9.1% in LA vs. 14.7% in GA), fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.25–0.59; p < 0.0001), including delirium, pneumonia, dyspnea, and myocardial infarction. No significant differences were found in the rate of recurrence (5.1% LA vs. 6.9% GA; p = 0.45) or mortality (3.0% LA vs. 2.3% GA; p = 0.55). Additional advantages found in the LA group include a shorter operative times (a weighted mean operative time of 46.0 vs. 74.4 minutes for the LA and GA groups, respectively, with a MD of –29.28 minutes; p < 0.0001) and reduced hospital stays (4.9 vs. 7.6 days for the LA and GA groups, respectively, with a MD of –1.58 days; p = 0.0002). Despite the methodological strengths of the meta-analysis, limitations included inconsistent follow-up reporting, variable definitions of complications, and a lack of blinding in many studies, which may have introduced bias. These findings suggest that LA is a favorable alternative to GA for elderly patients, offering fewer complications and faster recovery. In summary, while the choice between LA and GA for cSDH remains a matter of ongoing research, evidence suggests LA offers advantages such as fewer complications, shorter operative times, and reduced hospital stays, without increasing recurrence or mortality.

Bilateral Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Spine Surgery

Severe postoperative pain is common in spine surgeries, particularly spinal fusion surgery. It negatively impacts long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction, recovery, and discharge.[45] The use of regional anesthesia techniques, namely, erector spinae plane (ESP) block for postoperative analgesia after spinal fusion surgeries, has gained popularity in recent years. Wu et al conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 RCTs involving 1,747 patients (873 ESP block group, 874 control group) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bilateral ultrasound-guided ESP block.[46] The ESP block group received ropivacaine or bupivacaine blocks, while the control group received either no block or wound infiltration.

The ESP block group experienced significantly lower pain intensity at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours compared with controls. Opioid consumption was significantly reduced (MD = 6.29 mg, 95% CI 8.16–4.41, p < 0.001), and the time to first rescue analgesia was prolonged (MD = 7.51 hours, 95% CI 3.47–11.54, p < 0.001). The ESP block group also had shorter hospital stays (MD = 0.38 days, 95% CI 0.50–0.26, p < 0.001). While this study highlights ESP block as an effective technique for reducing pain intensity at rest and during movement for at least 48 hours postsurgery, limitations include study heterogeneity and small sample sizes. Further large-scale trials are needed to validate these findings.

Narrative Reviews of Interest

Several excellent review papers focused on topics of particular interest to neuroanesthesiologists were published over the last year. Carabini et al[47] have published a focused review on perioperative management for complex spinal fusion surgeries. Ma and Bebawy[48] have published a comprehensive review on anemia and transfusion thresholds in brain-injured patients. Kartal et al.[49] have published a narrative review focusing on the concept of optimal BP targets after TBI. On a similar topic, Vu et al[50] published a review article on the physiologic basis, measurement, and clinical implications of monitoring CBF autoregulation. Battaglini et al[51] published a narrative review on the crosstalk between the nervous system and systemic organs in ABI. In their review, Mitchell and Flexman[52] have summarized the tools available to measure frailty in the neurosurgical population and the prevalence of frailty in the spine and intracranial surgical patient cohorts. They also discussed the current evidence on the relationship between frailty with postoperative outcomes, and interventions to improve outcomes and future areas of research. Wiles et al[53] have published a multidisciplinary, multisociety consensus guideline on airway management for patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury. Frontera et al[54] published a clinical practice guideline for seizure prophylaxis in adults hospitalized with moderate-severe TBI. Lyons et al[55] published a review on the perioperative management of antithrombotic medications. Martínez-Palacios et al[56] as a part of the noninvasive ICP monitoring international consensus group, published a scoping review on the quantitative pupillometry for ICP in TBI. Lele et al[57] published a global survey on the practices in the perioperative management of patients with aSAH who underwent microsurgical repair of a ruptured intracerebral aneurysm. Finally, Lewis et al[58] in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Society, and Society for Critical Care Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology published updated, evidence-informed consensus-based guidelines on pediatric and adult brain death/death by neurologic criteria determination.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 Rass V, Helbok R. How to diagnose delayed cerebral ischaemia and symptomatic vasospasm and prevent cerebral infarction in patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage. Curr Opin Crit Care 2021; 27 (02) 103-114
• 2 Francoeur CL, Mayer SA. Management of delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Crit Care 2016; 20 (01) 277
• 3 Picetti E, Bouzat P, Bader MK. et al. A survey on monitoring and management of cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage: the Mantra study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2024; 36 (03) 258-265
• 4 Hoh BL, Ko NU, Amin-Hanjani S. et al. 2023 guideline for the management of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2023; 54 (07) e314-e370 Erratum in: Stroke. 2023;54: e516
• 5 Betteridge T, Finnis M, Cohen J, Delaney A, Young P, Udy A. PROMOTE-SAH Investigators. Blood pressure management goals in critically ill aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients in Australia and New Zealand. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2024; 36 (03) 237-243
• 6 Aspide R, Berselli B, Piazza O, Recchia A, Bilotta F. Statins in subarachnoid hemorrhage to prevent delayed cerebral ischemia: old drugs for new strategies?. Neurocrit Care 2024; 41 (01) 15-16
• 7 Wang X, Gan Q, You C, Ma L. Effect of statin treatment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a network meta-analysis. Neurocrit Care 2024; 41 (01) 49-58
• 8 Niini T, Laakso A, Tanskanen P, Niemelä M, Luostarinen T. Perioperative treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations between 2006 and 2014: the Helsinki protocol. Neurocrit Care 2019; 31 (02) 346-356
• 9 Yan D, Yuan K, Chen Y. et al. Risk factors for delayed postoperative hemorrhage in patients with brain arteriovenous malformations: an analysis of the nationwide multicenter prospective registry MATCH study. J Neurosurg 2024; 141 (02) 316-322
• 10 van der Worp HB, Hofmeijer J, Jüttler E. et al. European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on the management of space-occupying brain infarction. Eur Stroke J 2021; 6 (02) XC-CX
• 11 Beck J, Fung C, Strbian D. et al; SWITCH study investigators. Decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for spontaneous severe deep supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet 2024; 403 (10442): 2395-2404
• 12 Talke PO, Sharma D, Heyer EJ, Bergese SD, Blackham KA, Stevens RD. Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care Expert consensus statement: anesthetic management of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke*: endorsed by the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery and the Neurocritical Care Society. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2014; 26 (02) 95-108
• 13 Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T. et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council. 2018 guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2018; 49 (03) e46-e110
• 14 Al-Salihi MM, Saha R, Ayyad A. et al. General anesthesia versus conscious sedation for acute ischemic stroke endovascular therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 2024; 181: 161-170.e2
• 15 Crimmins D, Ryan E, Shah D. et al. The effect of anesthetic agent and mean arterial pressure on functional outcome after general anesthesia for endovascular thrombectomy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2024; 36 (01) 29-36
• 16 Bath PM, Song L, Silva GS. et al. Blood pressure management for ischemic stroke in the first 24 hours. Stroke 2022; 53 (04) 1074-1084
• 17 Chen Y, Zhu L. Efficacy and safety of intensive blood pressure lowering after reperfusion therapy in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2024; 183: e909-e919
• 18 Hébert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA. et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion requirements in critical care investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (06) 409-417
• 19 Turgeon AF, Fergusson DA, Clayton L. et al; HEMOTION Trial Investigators on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Canadian Perioperative Anesthesia Clinical Trials Group, and the Canadian Traumatic Brain Injury Research Consortium. Liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2024; 391 (08) 722-735
• 20 Kobata H. Clinical insights and future directions in hypothermia for severe traumatic brain injury: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (14) 4221
• 21 Martyniuk A, Hart S, Lannon M. et al. Therapeutic hypothermia compared with normothermia in adults with traumatic brain injury: functional outcome, mortality, and adverse effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurocrit Care 2024; 41 (02) 400-417
• 22 Citerio G, Oddo M, Taccone FS. Recommendations for the use of multimodal monitoring in the neurointensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care 2015; 21 (02) 113-119
• 23 Bailey RL, Quattrone F, Curtin C. et al. The safety of multimodality monitoring using a triple-lumen bolt in severe acute brain injury. World Neurosurg 2019; 130: e62-e67
• 24 Barrit S, El Hadwe S, Al Barajraji M. et al. Complications of intracranial multimodal monitoring for neurocritical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurocrit Care 2024; 40 (03) 1182-1192
• 25 Rajendran G, Mahalingam S, Ramkumar A. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of optic nerve sheath diameter using ultrasonography for raised intracranial pressure in pediatric patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2024; 190: e1000-e1017
• 26 Xu J, Song Y, Shah Nayaz BM. et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter sonography for the diagnosis of intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2024; 182: 136-143
• 27 Martínez-Palacios K, Vásquez-García S, Fariyike OA, Robba C, Rubiano AM. noninvasive ICP monitoring international consensus group. Using optic nerve sheath diameter for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in traumatic brain injury: a scoping review. Neurocrit Care 2024; 40 (03) 1193-1212
• 28 Hirzallah MI, Lochner P, Hafeez MU. et al; Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Quality Criteria Checklist (ONSD POCUS QCC) Expert Panelists. Optic nerve sheath diameter point-of-care ultrasonography quality criteria checklist: an international consensus statement on optic nerve sheath diameter imaging and measurement. Crit Care Med 2024; 52 (10) 1543-1556
• 29 Meng L, Sun Y, Zhao X. et al. Noradrenaline-induced changes in cerebral blood flow in health, traumatic brain injury and critical illness: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2024; 79 (09) 978-991
• 30 Ortmann E, Besser MW, Klein AA. Antifibrinolytic agents in current anaesthetic practice. Br J Anaesth 2013; 111 (04) 549-563
• 31 Li S, Liu M, Yang J. et al. Intravenous tranexamic acid for intracerebral meningioma resections: a randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial. J Clin Anesth 2024; 92: 111285
• 32 Brown NJ, Hartke JN, Pacult M. et al. Tranexamic acid demonstrates efficacy without increased risk for venous thromboembolic events in cranial neurosurgery: systematic review of the evidence and current applications in nontraumatic pathologies. World Neurosurg 2024; 183: 29-40
• 33 Akavipat P, Sookplung P, Lekprasert V, Kasemsiri C, Lerdsirisophon S. Dexmedetomidine for awake craniotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2024; 127: 110765
• 34 Liu SY, Kelly-Hedrick M, Komisarow J. et al. Association of early dexmedetomidine utilization with clinical outcomes after moderate-severe traumatic brain injury: a retrospective cohort study. Anesth Analg 2024; 139 (02) 366-374
• 35 Liu SY, Kelly-Hedrick M, Temkin N. et al; Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) Investigators. Association of early dexmedetomidine utilization with clinical and functional outcomes following moderate-severe traumatic brain injury: a transforming clinical research and knowledge in traumatic brain injury study. Crit Care Med 2024; 52 (04) 607-617
• 36 Wongsripuemtet P, Ohnuma T, Temkin N. et al; TRACK-TBI investigators. Association of early dexmedetomidine exposure with brain injury biomarker levels following moderate - severe traumatic brain injury: a TRACK-TBI study. J Clin Neurosci 2024; 126: 338-347
• 37 Hatfield J, Soto AL, Kelly-Hedrick M. et al. Safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of dexmedetomidine for sedation in traumatic brain injury: a scoping review. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2024; 36 (02) 101-108
• 38 Dong R, Li F, Li B. et al. Effects of an early intensive blood pressure-lowering strategy using remifentanil and dexmedetomidine in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a multicenter, prospective, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2024; 141 (01) 100-115
• 39 Flexman AM, Ng JL, Gelb AW. Acute and chronic pain following craniotomy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2010; 23 (05) 551-557
• 40 Zeng M, Xu X, Li R. et al. Dexmedetomidine prevents chronic incisional pain after brain tumor resection: a secondary analysis of the randomized control trial. Anesth Analg 2024; 138 (04) 839-847
• 41 Perez JL, Naylor RM, Bauman MMJ. et al. Safety of the immediate use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs after adult craniotomy for tumor. J Neurosurg 2024; 141 (01) 117-122
• 42 Harrison DJ, Brown CS, Naylor RM. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications in cranial neurosurgery: balancing opioid-sparing analgesia with bleeding risk. World Neurosurg 2024; 181: e875-e881
• 43 Ahn S, Park JS, Cho CB, Yang SH, Kim YI. Impact of anesthesia type on surgical outcomes and medical complications in chronic subdural hematoma surgery. J Clin Neurosci 2024; 129: 110876
• 44 Liu E, Zhou A, Tilbury N, Persad A, Radic J. Chronic subdural hematoma drainage under local versus general anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2024; 184: e154-e165
• 45 Mathiesen O, Dahl B, Thomsen BA. et al. A comprehensive multimodal pain treatment reduces opioid consumption after multilevel spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (09) 2089-2096
• 46 Wu S, Zhang XY, Deng ST. et al. Efficacy and safety of bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 2024; 181: e655-e677
• 47 Carabini LM, Koski TR, Bebawy JF. Perioperative management for complex spine fusion surgery. Anesthesiology 2024; 140 (02) 293-303
• 48 Ma K, Bebawy JF. Anemia and optimal transfusion thresholds in brain-injured patients: a narrative review of the literature. Anesth Analg 2024; 138 (05) 992-1002
• 49 Kartal A, Robba C, Helmy A, Wolf S, Aries MJH. How to define and meet blood pressure targets after traumatic brain injury: a narrative review. Neurocrit Care 2024; 41 (02) 369-385
• 50 Vu EL, Brown IV CH, Brady KM, Hogue CW. Monitoring of cerebral blood flow autoregulation: physiologic basis, measurement, and clinical implications. Br J Anaesth 2024; 132 (06) 1260-1273
• 51 Battaglini D, De Rosa S, Godoy DA. Crosstalk between the nervous system and systemic organs in acute brain injury. Neurocrit Care 2024; 40 (01) 337-348
• 52 Mitchell A, Flexman AM. Frailty: implications for neuroanesthesia. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2024; 36 (02) 95-100
• 53 Wiles MD, Iliff HA, Brooks K. et al. Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury: guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society (DAS), Association of Anaesthetists (AoA), British Society of Orthopaedic Anaesthetists (BSOA), Intensive Care Society (ICS), Neuro Anaesthesia and Critical Care Society (NACCS), Faculty of Prehospital Care and Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM). Anaesthesia 2024; 79 (08) 856-868
• 54 Frontera JA, Gilmore EJ, Johnson EL. et al. Guidelines for seizure prophylaxis in adults hospitalized with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury: a clinical practice guideline for health care professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocrit Care 2024; 40 (03) 819-844
• 55 Lyons MD, Pope B, Alexander J. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy. JAMA 2024; 332 (05) 420-421
• 56 Martínez-Palacios K, Vásquez-García S, Fariyike OA, Robba C, Rubiano AM. noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring international consensus group. Noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring international consensus group. Quantitative pupillometry for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in traumatic brain injury: a scoping review. Neurocrit Care 2024; 41 (01) 255-271
• 57 Lele AV, Shiferaw AA, Theard MA. et al; Global-SAH project collaborators. A global review of the perioperative care of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage undergoing microsurgical repair of ruptured intracerebral aneurysm. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2024; 36 (02) 164-171
• 58 Lewis A, Kirschen MP, Greer D. The 2023 AAN/AAP/CNS/SCCM pediatric and adult brain death/death by neurologic criteria consensus practice guideline: a comparison with the 2010 and 2011 guidelines. Neurol Clin Pract 2023; 13 (06) e200189

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. April 2025