Skip to main content
Annals of Intensive Care
Download PDF

Update in Neurocritical Care: a summary of the 2018 Paris international conference of the French Society of Intensive Care

Annals of Intensive Care volume 9, Article number: 47 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

The 2018 Paris Intensive Care symposium entitled “Update in Neurocritical Care” was organized in Paris, June 21–22, 2018, under the auspices of the French Intensive Care Society. This 2-day post-graduate educational symposium comprised several chapters, aiming first to provide all-board intensivists with current standards for the clinical assessment of altered consciousness states (including coma and delirium) and peripheral nervous system in critically ill patients, monitoring of brain function (specifically, electro-encephalography) and best practices for sedation—analgesia—delirium management. An update on the treatment of specific severe brain pathologies—including ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury, immune-mediated and infectious encephalitis and refractory status epilepticus—was also provided. Finally, we discuss how to approach some difficult decisions, namely the role of decompressive craniectomy and prognostication models in patients with head injury. For each chapter, the scope of the present review was to provide important issues and key messages, provide most recent and relevant literature in the field, and briefly describe new developments in the field.

Introduction

The 2018 Paris Intensive Care (PIC) symposium organized in Paris, June 21–22, 2018, under the auspices of the French Intensive Care Society focused on neurocritical care. This 2-day educational symposium provided general intensivists with an overall view of basic principles of neurological assessment, neuro-monitoring and sedation management to apply at the bedside when caring for the injured brain. Specific severe acute brain pathologies were reviewed aiming at providing an update on current best practice care of several diseases—such as ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury, immune-mediated and infectious encephalitis and refractory status epilepticus. We also discussed difficult decisions such as the role of decompressive craniectomy and neuro-prognostication following head injury. The objective of the present review is to summarize, for each chapter, the most important issues and key messages (what is important), and briefly describe new developments in the field (what is new), aiming at providing updated relevant literature in the field.

Caring for the injured brain: general aspects

See also Table 1.

Table 1 Care of the injured brain in the general ICU: basic comprehensive aspects
Full size table

Assessment of the comatose patient

What is important

Assessment of the comatose patient relies on clinical examination, neuroimaging and neuro-monitoring. Neurological examination includes the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)—and particularly the GCS-motor response (GCS-M) to pain—and brainstem reflexes, with a specific attention to pupillary aspect (symmetry) and functionality (reactivity) [1]. The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score comprises the assessment of both the cortical and brainstem functions [2].

Neuroimaging encompasses (a) brain CT scan, for diagnosis of acute thromboembolic and haemorrhagic complications, hydrocephalus, oedema, abscess; (b) transcranial Doppler ultrasound to estimate cerebral perfusion and intracranial compliance non-invasively [3]; (c) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging to quantify the extent and location of brain damage and for outcome prognostication [4]. Neuro-monitoring includes several invasive (intracranial pressure, brain oximetry) and non-invasive modalities (transcranial doppler, electro-encephalography [EEG], automated infrared pupillometry). Indications and optimal combination of monitoring modalities is dependent on injury type and severity, and the expected risk of secondary cerebral damage.

What is new

Automated infrared pupillometry enables the quantitative assessment of basic fundamental neurological tests, such as pupillary symmetry and reactivity [5,6,7]. Multimodal monitoring has become central for individualized targeted neurocritical care, focused on improving altered brain physiology at the bedside [8] and for neuro-prognostication [9, 10].

EEG monitoring of brain function in the comatose patient

What is important

Continuous EEG (c-EEG) is indicated for the management of refractory status epilepticus. In this setting, when to use continuous versus intermittent EEG remains debated [11]. Most epileptic abnormalities can be captured using a 2-h recording [12], while c-EEG for 24 h or more may be indicated in high-risk patients (comatose and prior seizures) [13]. C-EEG may be part of multimodal ICU monitoring, e.g. to monitor sedation depth and pharmacological burst-suppression, to detect secondary ischaemia, or for coma prognostication [14, 15]. There are several barriers to cEEG implementation, including the requirement for continuous access to technicians and neurophysiologists [15] and difficulties in data storage. Also, there is a lack of consensus on the clinical significance of selected outcome predictive EEG patterns that should be prioritized in the ICU setting, i.e. non-convulsive seizures, hemispheric asymmetry due to evolving ischaemic conditions, and sedation-induced EEG suppression. Finally, lack of standardization and reliability, particularly with respect to reactivity to pain [16], and the need for an international consensus to define the main EEG prognostic features [17] are some of the still unsolved questions related to the use of EEG in critically ill in comatose patients.

What is new

Spectral analysis (quantitative EEG) and software enabling artefact elimination facilitate availability of EEG at the bedside and reduce the risk of reading errors and false interpretation. EEG training courses improve the accuracy of quantitative EEG reading by general intensivists, raising hope for future effective implementation in daily ICU practice [18, 19].

Assessment of delirious patient

What is important

Brain dysfunction in the ICU patient goes beyond comatose states and includes a wide spectrum of consciousness disorders that characterize delirium states. Delirium is defined by a disturbance in attention and awareness developing over a short time period, fluctuates during the day, and is accompanied by a change in cognition [20]. Delirium assessment needs first evaluating the level of sedation, e.g. by the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), and then utilizing delirium assessment scales such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening checklist (ICDSC) [21]. Delirium pathophysiology is complex, resulting from hypoxic, inflammatory and metabolic insults, and may be aggravated or amplified by multiple factors. These include non-modifiable factors (age, co-morbidities, pre-existing cognitive impairment and psychoactive drug use, severity of illness) and potentially modifiable factors (renal failure, hypernatremia, hypercapnia, dysglycemia, sedatives, neurotoxic antimicrobial agents, immobilization and use of physical restraints) [22, 23].

What is new

Emerging evidence established a link between delirium and brainstem dysfunction, and particularly autonomic nervous system dysfunction and impairment of cholinergic activity [24]. This correlates clinically with the abolition of cough reflex and worse outcome seen in severe critically ill patients requiring deep sedation [25]. Accurate evaluation of brainstem function, and the development of new scores such as the Brainstem Reflexes Assessment Sedation Scale (BRASS) [26], or the use of automated pupillometry for quantitative assessment of pupillary function [5], may improve delirium assessment and outcome prediction. EEG may be helpful for differential diagnosis and investigating potential contributing factors (over-sedation, antibiotic toxicity), as well as in predicting prognosis [27, 28].

Sedative strategies and delirium management

Sedative strategies

What is important

The general trend in the ICU about sedation is “less is more”. Strategies aimed at minimizing sedation include [29]:

  1. (1)

    Daily interruption of sedation, or at least, a daily consideration for sedation interruption;

  2. (2)

    Use of sedation algorithms, to avoid over-sedation;

  3. (3)

    Analgesia prioritization-based algorithm;

  4. (4)

    Patient-centred care based on the assessment and treatment of specific symptoms (pain, anxiety, delusion), to avoid deep sedation [30].

What is new

Sedative-induced delirium was the most frequent delirium subtype in a recent study, and the subtype for which prolonged duration of delirium was associated with the greatest impact on long-term cognitive dysfunction [31]. A strategy of immediate interruption of sedation, in ICU patients after major abdominal surgery (mostly with septic shock), translated into reduced delirium incidence and hospital length of stay [32]. A strategy based on minimizing benzodiazepine is recommended by recent consensus documents [18]. Although this may reduce delirium risk in non-severe surgical ICU patients, new data showed that delirium prevention using anti-psychotics is ineffective in more severe critically ill patients [33]. Also, there is currently no data supporting the use of monitoring systems, such as the bispectral index, to tailor sedation in the critically ill. Continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine may accelerate delirium recovery [34], while intermittent nightly administration of low dose dexmedetomidine promotes sleep and reduces delirium [35]; however, this study suffered from a small sample size and requires confirmation in larger cohorts. In the AWARE randomized multicenter trial, all adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h were randomized into two groups, based on standard sedation practices (control; n = 590) versus a sedation strategy according to an algorithm which provided a gradual multilevel response to pain, agitation, and ventilator dyssynchrony and promotion of the use of alternatives to continuous infusion of midazolam or propofol (intervention; n = 584) [36]. Although the use of midazolam and propofol was significantly lower in the intervention group, 90-day mortality was lower, although not significantly singnificant (39 vs. 44% in the control group, p = 0.09), in the intervention group.

Developing management approaches for delirium

What is important

Delirium management implies the implementation of a multistep delirium management bundle, using different approaches, such as the e-CASH and ABCDEF bundles [20, 37], which include:

  1. (1)

    Early detection and correction of risk factors (sepsis, metabolic and respiratory disturbances);

  2. (2)

    Control of iatrogenic risk factors (sedation; in particular, limiting or avoiding benzodiazepines);

  3. (3)

    Favouring non-pharmacological interventions to treat anxiety, pain and sleep privation in order to avoid the adverse events associated with psychoactive drugs;

  4. (4)

    Promoting early active mobilization.

What is new

A multiapproach delirium management bundle, coupled with targeted sedation, mechanical ventilation weaning strategies, and early mobilization, is effective in reducing delirium incidence, and even mortality [38, 39]. Whether non-pharmacological preventive strategies for anxiety, pain and sleep deprivation may benefit cognitive function needs further investigation [40]. In this setting, music therapy has gained recent interest in the area of critical care [41]. Artificial light is ineffective to reduce delirium in the ICU [42].

ICU-acquired weakness

Pathophysiology

What is important?

ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW; defined as a generalized hypotonic and symmetrical weakness, with sparing of facial muscles, occurring during and/or after the ICU stay) is a common and serious complication of critical illness [43]. The pathophysiology is multifactorial [44], but include severe underlying disease, sepsis and/or multiorgan failure, and older age. Bed rest may also be an important factor, since it causes a significant decrease in strength and cardiorespiratory endurance.

What is new?

Animal models are lacking or may fail to clarify ICU-AW pathophysiology [45, 46]. Clinical research on ICU-AW during the early phase may be limited by coagulation disorders that often hamper neurophysiological testing and biopsies Although inflammation is consistently increased in experimental and clinical studies, infiltration of inflammatory cells into the neural and muscular tissue is rarely found [47]. Blood glucose control with insulin, targeting normoglycemia, and early weaning from mechanical ventilation may attenuate ICU-AW [48].

Clinical aspects

What is important

The Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle scale is recommended for the diagnosis of ICU-AW, with a score below 48 defining ICU-AW [49]. Physical examination should be completed by electrophysiological (electroneuromyography, ENMG), imaging and biology tests to rule out alternative diagnoses, in particular when the clinical picture involves asymmetric weakness, pyramidal syndrome, facial involvement, ascending/descending weakness, autonomic nervous system dysfunction and extra-neurological signs [50].

What is new

The diaphragm is more susceptible to systemic inflammation than limb muscles and its structure and function is rapidly altered after only 36 h of mechanical ventilation in humans [51, 52]. ICU-AW and diaphragmatic dysfunction share the same risk factors; diaphragmatic dysfunction affects the weaning process from the ventilator but also survival [53, 54]. ICU-AW and diaphragmatic dysfunction have an impact on long-term morbidity and mortality. Innovative clinical trials are needed to examine the effectiveness of early bundle strategies that may include electrical stimulation, physical therapy and optimized nutrition for preventing or reducing the occurrence of ICU-AW and diaphragmatic dysfunction.

Early mobilization

What is important

Early mobilization and physical activity is effective on the short-term in several studies [39, 55], although results of long-term outcome studies are more controversial [56, 57]. The detrimental physiological effects of restricted mobility on all systems, and the benefits of being upright and moving have been widely reported. Issues related to early physical activity and mobilization of patients in the ICU as a therapeutic option including safety, therapy duration and intensity, and implementation have only recently been a shared focus of interest in the ICU. Accurate assessment of cardiorespiratory reserve and rigorous screening for other factors that could preclude early mobilization is of paramount importance [58].

What is new

Different (modifiable) barriers for mobilization and rehabilitation were identified by nurses, physiotherapists and physicians: they include lack of staff and supporting equipment, no protocol, no mobility culture, lack of planning and coordination, no ‘champion’ in the team, or ‘standing bed rest’ order. A mobilization protocol, consisting of six levels of early mobilization and physical activity (using objective measurements including ‘basic’ assessment, adequacy score, muscle strength and functional performance) could help solving such barriers [59].

In a single-center randomized clinical trial enrolling more than 300 patients, the addition of early in-bed leg cycling plus electrical muscular stimulation (quadriceps muscles) to a strategy of standardized early rehabilitation (i.e. a weekday progressive multistep program beginning with 10 passive range of motion exercises with each limb joint applied once every weekday by physiotherapists to comatose or sedated patients, followed by passive or active exercises and then fully active muscle exercises (i.e. transfer to the edge of the bed or to a chair, standing, and walking) did not improve global muscle strength at ICU discharge [60].

Caring for the injured brain: management of specific pathologies

See also Table 2.

Table 2 Caring for the injured brain: specific management of severe acute cerebral pathologies
Full size table

Hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury (HIBI)

What is important

Currently, no pharmacological approach is available to treat HIBI [61] and the only recommended intervention with proven efficacy in comatose adults after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with an initial shockable rhythm is targeted temperature management (TTM), started immediately on patient arrival to the hospital [62]. Pre-hospital cooling, using rapid infusion of large volumes of cold intravenous fluid, is not recommended. Modern devices with automated temperature retro-feedback are preferred to keep constant temperature, although there is no specific recommendation for a precise technique. Neuroprotective strategies include maintenance of adequate brain perfusion—by optimizing systemic hemodynamics, blood pressure and keeping normal PaCO2—and oxygenation, by using controlled oxygenation (SaO2 94–98%) and avoiding hyperoxia [63]. Neuro-prognostication is based on multimodal assessment, including neurological tests (pupillary reactivity) and electro-physiologic assessment (mainly, somatosensory evoked potentials and EEG), with clinical decisions taken at least > 72 h, paying specific attention to exclude potential confounders (residual sedation, metabolic derangements) and to repeat the tests in case of discordant findings [10]. The most robust predictors include a bilateral absence of corneal and/or pupillary reflexes or N20 waves of short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials. These robust predictors have a high specificity, but their sensitivity rarely exceeds 50%. If results of most robust predictors are normal, a second set of predictors can be tested, such as high blood levels of neuron specific enolase (NSE), presence of malignant EEG patterns (status epilepticus, burst-suppression, non-reactive background), and signs of diffuse HIBI on brain CT or MRI.

What is new

The ongoing international multicentre randomized controlled TTM-2 trial will compare two target temperature strategies, i.e. 33 °C versus fever control (< 37.8 °C) in a large group (n = 1900) of comatose cardiac arrest patients and should provide additional robust data to available evidence. In recent years, new progress towards a better standardization of neuro-prognostic indices has been accumulating. Studies adopting the 2013 American Clinical Neurophysiology Society guidelines to define malignant EEG patterns showed that these patterns are not only reproducible with acceptable interrater agreement, but also predict early with both high sensitivity and specificity [17]. Automated quantitative pupillometry achieved higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional pupillary assessment to assess poor prognosis [7, 64]; in particular, a neurological pupil index (NPI) < 2 at 24 h after arrest had a specificity of 100% to identify patients with unfavourable neurological outcome [64]. In patients with prolonged (≥ 7 days) unconsciousness after cardiac arrest, measurement of fractional anisotropy of the white matter of the brain using diffuse tensor MRI imaging, predicted poor neurological outcome with 100% specificity and 89% sensitivity [65].

Immune-mediated encephalitis

What is important

Up to one third of encephalitis is of non-infectious origin [66, 67], and in one study 21% of patients with presumed infectious encephalitis actually had immune-mediated encephalitis [66]. Among immune-mediated encephalitis, anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDA-R) encephalitis is the most commonly encountered form. The relevant antibody can be detected in the blood and/or CSF but, despite extensive CSF, EEG and MRI work-up, immune-mediated encephalitis without identified antibodies still exist. First-line therapy includes high-dose steroids and immunotherapy (IV immunoglobulins or plasma exchange). Second-line therapy (rituximab or cyclophosphamide) is started in the absence of rapid neurological improvement [68, 69]. Careful search of neoplastic causes (e.g. ovarian teratoma) is mandatory, because surgical removal is indicated in this case [70].

What is new

The recent description of patients with a common clinical presentation in association with ovarian teratoma and the identification of specific antibodies directed against N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDA-R) changed our view of encephalitis [70]. Since, several new antibodies associated to encephalitis are described each year [70]. Diagnostic criteria are now available [70]. In the ICU, two main patterns are encountered: (1) encephalitis with psychiatric symptoms, seizures and abnormal movements, most frequently associated with anti-NMDA-R antibodies, and (2) refractory status epilepticus, associated with anti-NMDA-R, GABA-A or LGI-1 antibodies. Importantly, prognosis is good in the majority of patients [68].

Central nervous system vasculitis

What is important

CNS vasculitis causes inflammation and destruction of blood vessel walls affecting brain, spinal cord and/or meninges. It is rare (incidence 2.4/million per year) and is classified as primary (primary CNS angitis, PACNS) or secondary to systemic diseases, including infections (bacteria, viruses, parasites and fungi), vasculitis with or without the presence of anti-cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA), connective tissue diseases (particularly systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjögren disease) and malignancies, including cancers and lymphoma. Clinical manifestations are non-specific and heterogeneous (headache, focal motor or sensory abnormalities, cognitive impairment, seizures), and clinical presentation can be acute with a feature of stroke involving multiple and bilateral vascular territories or chronic and progressive with cognitive deficit and psychiatric manifestations. CSF reveals aseptic meningitis with modest increased cellularity and it may be normal in 20% of cases. MRI is essential to diagnosis and reveals multiple ischaemic lesions or haemorrhages. A normal MRI associated with normal CSF analysis exclude the diagnosis of CNS vasculitis. Infectious, neoplastic and autoimmune conditions should be ruled out.

What is new

The treatment of CNS vasculitis is an emergency and should be related to aetiology. High dose of steroids is required in PACNS and for some groups, cyclophosphamide should be associated although there is no consensus [71, 72]. The indication of antiplatelet agents is not clear and the interest of rituximab and other emergent biotherapies is not demonstrated. To conclude, unlike the progress of neuroimaging, the diagnosis of CNS remains a challenge requiring multimodal approach and a close cooperation between specialists (i.e. neurologists, neuroradiologists, immunologists…).

Refractory status epilepticus

What is important

Management of status epilepticus (SE) is based on four immediate simultaneous actions [71, 74]:

  1. (1)

    Confirm diagnosis, eliminate non-epileptic psychogenic events, encephalopathies with myoclonus and other abnormal movements: video-EEG may help in this setting.

  2. (2)

    Treat systemic consequences of SE and other factors of cerebral aggression, consequences of treatment, and complications of intensive care.

  3. (3)

    Treat aggravating factors (e.g. fever).

  4. (4)

    Ensure sustained interruption of epileptic activity:

    1. (a)

      0–5 min: benzodiazepines, renewed if seizures last more than 5 min; clonazepam is an effective alternative to lorazepam and in the absence of venous access, intramuscular midazolam is an appropriate option.

    2. (b)

      > 5 min: start an anti-epileptic drug: fosphenytoine, valproate (contraindicated in women of childbearing age), phenobarbital, or levetiracetam; defining the optimal treatment sequence is debated [75].

    3. (c)

      > 20–30 min: SE persisting after two appropriately selected and dosed parenteral medications including a benzodiazepine is defined as refractory SE (RSE). Coma induction with midazolam, propofol then pentobarbital/thiopental—and increasingly with ketamine—is recommended [76]. Seizures must be clinically unquestionable or EEG-proven (non-convulsive status post-generalized status); therefore, EEG is an integral part of the management of RSE. Guidelines recommend obtaining the suppression of electrographic seizures or aiming for burst-suppression for at least 24 h before gradual reduction in IV anaesthetics [73].

SE persisting for > 24 h after the onset of general anaesthesia is defined as super-refractory SE (SRSE) [76]. The treatment remains empiric. An immunological cause must be ruled out and treated early. Although SRSE has a poor prognosis, some patients may recover even in prolonged cases. Advice by and/or transfer to centres with specific neurology expertise are advisable [77].

What is new

Novel anti-seizure medications (e.g. levetiracetam, brivaracetam, lacosamide, perampanel), with a better safety and pharmacokinetic profile, hold promise for the treatment of RSE. Further studies are required to clarify the indications and optimal use of such novel agents [78]. While avoidance of fever is recommended in RSE, therapeutic hypothermia (32–34 °C for 24 h) does not confer any additional benefit [79].

Acute ischaemic stroke

What is important

Mechanical thrombectomy with intravenous alteplase (rtPA) is the current gold standard to improve neurological outcomes of acute ischaemic stroke consecutive to large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation (i.e. internal carotid and middle cerebral arteries) based on six randomized controlled trials showing the superiority of such strategy over rtPA alone (number needed to treat 2.6) [80]. The benefit of mechanical thrombectomy was the most important for the oldest patient over 80 years old and those with the most severe strokes. The therapeutic window for mechanical thrombectomy initially established at 6 h after symptoms onset has moved to 24 h since the recent publication of two randomized trials showing the benefit of endovascular therapy in highly selected patients with multimodal imaging [81].

What is new

Trials are currently ongoing to address the benefit of mechanical thrombectomy alone versus mechanical thrombectomy in association with intravenous alteplase. Tenecteplase may be associated with higher recanalization rates compared to alteplase in patients with large vessel occlusions [82, 83]. The best strategy for patient transfer (i.e. “drip and ship” thrombolysis at a local stroke unit and transfer to a comprehensive stroke centre for mechanical thrombectomy versus “mother ship” direct transfer to the comprehensive stroke centre) remains to be established.

Management of acute ischaemic stroke in patients treated with oral anticoagulants

Systemic thrombolysis with rtPA is contra-indicated in patients treated with anticoagulants, including direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC; including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). Idarucizumab, the specific antidote of dabigatran, induces immediate normalization of coagulation, without intrinsic thrombotic effect. Based on expert consensus, the use of rtPA is proposed for dabigatran-treated patients facing ischaemic stroke immediately after dabigatran reversal [84]. Rapid measurement of dabigatran concentration may improve the selection of patients that may benefit from reversal. Such strategy is not recommended with other DOAC.

Anticoagulant associated brain haemorrhage

What is important

Spontaneous oral anticoagulation-related intracerebral haemorrhage is associated with larger haematoma volumes and increased rates of haematoma enlargement, leading to higher mortality rates. Therefore, prevention of secondary haematoma expansion is an important goal, based on urgent reversal of anticoagulation. Whereas appropriate reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is associated with a decrease in mortality, whether reversal of DOAC may improve outcome has never been demonstrated [85].

What is new

Management of DOAC reversal is evolving: activated or non-activated prothrombin concentrates were initially recommended, despite limited data on their safety and efficacy. Andexanet-alpha, the specific antidote to factor Xa-inhibitors, is not marketed yet in Europe and raises concerns regarding its potential thrombotic risk. Idarucizumab, the specific antidote of dabigatran, is currently available. In a mouse model of dabigatran-related ICH, idarucizumab not only prevented haematoma expansion but also reduced mortality [86]. Therefore, as for VKA, guidelines recommend urgent reversal in patients with DOAC-related ICH, irrespective of the agent [87]. The role of surgery remains controversial and haematoma removal should be reserved only for salvageable patients (i.e. young age with rapid deterioration) with clinical and/or CT signs of brain herniation.

Cerebral venous thrombosis

What is important

Cerebral venous thrombosis is an uncommon cause of stroke (< 1% of all causes). At the acute phase, treatment includes management of the associated condition (infection, inflammatory conditions…), anticoagulation with low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin, treatment of intracranial hypertension, prevention of recurrent seizures and headache relief. Prognosis is generally good: mortality is below 5%, with only 15% of the patients remaining dependent [88].

What is new

In severe cases, decompressive surgery (i.e. hemicraniectomy and/or haematoma drainage) is lifesaving and often results in good functional outcome, irrespective of age, coma, aphasia, bilateral lesions, or non-reactive mydriasis [89]. Endovascular intervention is an alternative option for patients with severe forms on admission or with neurological deterioration despite the appropriate use of anticoagulation, especially in patients with thrombosis of the cerebral deep venous system and without large expanding hemispheric lesions [90]. The publication of the TOACT (Thrombolysis or anticoagulation for cerebral venous thrombosis) trial is expected; this randomized trial comparing endovascular treatment (thrombolysis with urokinase or rtPA and/or thrombectomy of any type) versus heparin will provide additional evidence on the best therapeutic strategy (clinical trials.gov NCT01204333).

Delayed ischaemia after subarachnoid haemorrhage

What is important

About 30% of patients suffering from aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) develop delayed cerebral ischaemia (DCI), defined as the occurrence of focal neurological impairment (such as hemiparesis, aphasia, apraxia, hemianopia, or neglect), or a decrease of at least 2 points on the Glasgow Coma Scale, with an acute onset and not attributed to other surgical or medical conditions [91]. DCI pathophysiology is complex; although the presence of cerebral vasospasm is often associated with the occurrence of this condition, DCI may also result from microvascular dysfunction, neuro-inflammation, cortical spreading depolarization or an imbalance between vasoactive substances, in the absence of narrowing of large intracranial vessels. Importantly, DCI, but not cerebral vasospasm, is an independent determinant of morbidity and mortality in SAH patients. Oral nimodipine is recommended for prophylaxis after SAH, despite its effect is independent from the occurrence of vasospasm, it is supported by very old and questionable evidence, and there are no data on DCI.

What is new

Drugs, such as intravenous magnesium or endothelin-receptor antagonists, failed to provide any benefit on the neurological outcome of SAH patients, despite reducing vasospasm [92]. One limitation in the management of DCI is the lack of standardized neuro-monitoring for early detection and an appropriate therapy besides the use of vasopressors to increase mean arterial pressure. Concerning neuro-monitoring, the use of transcranial doppler (TCD) and continuous electro-encephalography (cEEG) in clinically evaluable patients may help to detect cerebral disturbances and immediately perform brain imaging (i.e. brain CT angiography, CTA—brain CT perfusion, CTP) to exclude the presence of clinically relevant cerebral vasospasm (i.e. resulting in brain hypoperfusion). In comatose patients, the combination of TCD/cEEG with brain tissue oxygen monitoring or microdialysis may effectively detect early DCI when clinical examination is unreliable [93, 94]. If DCI is related to cerebral vasospasm and vasopressor therapy does not improve clinical conditions or brain oxygenation, alternative interventions may include endovascular therapies (i.e. intra-arterial nimodipine or milrinone, balloon angioplasty, intra-carotid continuous infusion of vasodilators), often combined with systemic inotropic therapy.

Clinical dilemmas: surgical decompression

What is important

Decompressive craniectomy (DC), i.e. surgical removal of a part of cranial vault with dura mater opening, is extremely effective in reducing brain herniation and intracranial pressure. This procedure is lifesaving, with controversial results on neurological recovery. In patients with large ischaemic stroke, DC decreases death rate and improves functional status. However, the proportion of patients with good neurological recovery remains low [95, 96]. In stroke patients aged < 60 years with unilateral MCA infarctions who deteriorate neurologically within 48 h despite medical therapy, DC reduces mortality by close to 50%, with 55% of the surgical survivors achieving moderate disability (able to walk) or better (modified Rankin scale, mRS score 2 or 3) and 18% achieving independence (mRS score 2) at 12 months, while for patients > 60 years of age DC reduces mortality by close to 50%, with 11% of the surgical survivors achieving moderate disability (able to walk [mRS score 3]) and none achieving independence (mRSscore ≤ 2) at 12 months. In two clinical trials on patients with severe head trauma, DC was effective in reducing mortality [97, 98]. However, the rate of head trauma patients with severe disability and/or vegetative state was significantly higher in the DC group, as compared to controls. However, both the studies above have limitations; one trial used only bi-frontal DC, selected only patients with diffuse brain injury and in the very early phase of therapy, when additional less invasive interventions could have been attempted [97]. In the second trial, 37% of controls also underwent delayed DC as salvage procedure, which produced a significant crossover between the study groups [98].

What is new

Despite the Brain Trauma Foundation recommends against bi-frontal DC [99], large DC, either unilateral or bilateral, might still be considered in some patients, such as those with neurological deterioration between admission and re-examination (i.e. secondary brain injury), as this would exclude severe primary injury and brainstem lesions [100, 101]. As such, DC remains a procedure with uncertain benefits on neurological recovery that deserves a multidisciplinary and rational approach, based on clinical trajectories and imaging. As ethical concerns are at stake with this procedure, relatives should be involved in the decision process.

Clinical dilemmas: outcome prediction after head trauma

What is important

The International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and the Corticosteroid Randomization after Significant Head Injury (CRASH) scores have been developed from large datasets and were externally validated to predict mortality and neurological outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI) at 6 months [102,103,104]. Nevertheless, these scores are limited because functional recovery may continue for at least 18 months following TBI in some patients and because of the large heterogeneity in outcome prediction for an individual patient.

What is new

Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—with the use of susceptibility-weighted-imaging (SWI), diffusion-weighted-imaging (DWI) and high-definition-fibre-tractography (HDFT)—improves outcome prediction, despite the lack of evidence supporting its routine clinical use [105, 106]. MRI diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and fractional anisotropy (FA) assess white matter integrity and are important in predicting outcome [107, 108]. The Coma Score was developed using MRI-DTI to predict 1-year outcome of patients unresponsive to simple orders after HIBI between day 7 and 45 after initial injury [65]; current ongoing research is evaluating this approach to predict TBI outcome. In a cohort of 105 comatose TBI patients, the area under the curve of the DTI score to predict poor outcome was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75–0.91) [109].

Abbreviations

BRASS:

Brainstem Reflexes Assessment Sedation Scale

CAM-ICU:

Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU

CRASH:

Corticosteroid Randomization after Significant Head Injury

CSF:

cerebrospinal fluid

CT:

computed tomography

DC:

decompressive craniectomy

DCI:

delayed cerebral ischaemia

DOAC:

direct oral anticoagulants

EEG:

electro-encephalography

DTI:

diffusion tensor imaging

DWI:

diffusion-weighted-imaging

ENMG:

electroneuromyography

FA:

fractional anisotropy

FOUR:

Full Outline of Unresponsiveness

GCS:

Glasgow Coma Score

HDFT:

high-definition-fibre-tractography

HIBI:

hypoxic ischaemic brain injury

ICDSC:

Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist

ICU:

intensive care unit

ICU-AW:

ICU-acquired weakness

IMPACT:

International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials

MCA:

middle cerebral artery

MRC:

Medical Research Council

MRI:

magnetic resonance imaging

mRS:

modified Rankin Scale

NMDA-R:

anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor

NSE:

neuron-specific enolase

PACNS:

primary angits of the central nervous system

PIC:

Paris Intensive Care

RASS:

Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale

RSE:

refractory status epilepticus

SRSE:

super-refractory status epilepticus

SWI:

susceptibility-weighted-imaging

TCD:

transcranial doppler

TOACT:

Thrombolysis or anticoagulation for cerebral venous thrombosis

TTM:

targeted temperature management

VKA:

vitamin K antagonists

References

  1. Sharshar T, Citerio G, Andrews PJ, Chieregato A, Latronico N, Menon DK, et al. Neurological examination of critically ill patients: a pragmatic approach. Report of an ESICM expert panel. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(4):484–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wijdicks EF, Rabinstein AA, Bamlet WR, Mandrekar JN. FOUR score and Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting outcome of comatose patients: a pooled analysis. Neurology. 2011;77(1):84–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bouzat P, Oddo M, Payen JF. Transcranial Doppler after traumatic brain injury: is there a role? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014;20(2):153–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stevens RD, Hannawi Y, Puybasset L. MRI for coma emergence and recovery. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014;20(2):168–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall CA, Chilcott RP. Eyeing up the future of the pupillary light reflex in neurodiagnostics. Diagnostics. 2018;8(1):19.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Larson MD, Behrends M. Portable infrared pupillometry: a review. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(6):1242–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oddo M, Sandroni C, Citerio G, Miroz J-P, Horn J, Rundgren M, et al. Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double-blinded study. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:2102 (In Press).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Le Roux P, Menon DK, Citerio G, Vespa P, Bader MK, Brophy GM, et al. Consensus summary statement of the international multidisciplinary consensus conference on multimodality monitoring in neurocritical care: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(9):1189–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rossetti AO, Rabinstein AA, Oddo M. Neurological prognostication of outcome in patients in coma after cardiac arrest. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(6):597–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sandroni C, Cariou A, Cavallaro F, Cronberg T, Friberg H, Hoedemaekers C, et al. Prognostication in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: an advisory statement from the European Resuscitation Council and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1816–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Claassen J, Taccone FS, Horn P, Holtkamp M, Stocchetti N, Oddo M, et al. Recommendations on the use of EEG monitoring in critically ill patients: consensus statement from the neurointensive care section of the ESICM. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1337–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shafi MM, Westover MB, Cole AJ, Kilbride RD, Hoch DB, Cash SS. Absence of early epileptiform abnormalities predicts lack of seizures on continuous EEG. Neurology. 2012;79(17):1796–801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Struck AF, Osman G, Rampal N, Biswal S, Legros B, Hirsch LJ, et al. Time-dependent risk of seizures in critically ill patients on continuous electroencephalogram. Ann Neurol. 2017;82(2):177–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Caricato A, Melchionda I, Antonelli M. Continuous electroencephalography monitoring in adults in the intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hilkman DMW, van Mook W, Mess WH, van Kranen-Mastenbroek V. The use of continuous EEG monitoring in intensive care units in The Netherlands: a national survey. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29(2):195–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsetsou S, Novy J, Oddo M, Rossetti AO. EEG reactivity to pain in comatose patients: importance of the stimulus type. Resuscitation. 2015;97:34–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Westhall E, Rossetti AO, van Rootselaar AF, Wesenberg Kjaer T, Horn J, Ullén S, et al. Standardized EEG interpretation accurately predicts prognosis after cardiac arrest. Neurology. 2016;86(16):1482–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Citerio G, Patruno A, Beretta S, Longhi L, Frigeni B, Lorini L, et al. Implementation of continuous qEEG in two neurointensive care units by intensivists: a feasibility study. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(7):1067–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dericioglu N, Yetim E, Bas DF, Bilgen N, Caglar G, Arsava EM, et al. Non-expert use of quantitative EEG displays for seizure identification in the adult neuro-intensive care unit. Epilepsy Res. 2015;109:48–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pandharipande PP, Ely EW, Arora RC, Balas MC, Boustani MA, La Calle GH, et al. The intensive care delirium research agenda: a multinational, interprofessional perspective. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1329–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chanques G, Ely EW, Garnier O, Perrigault F, Eloi A, Carr J, et al. The 2014 updated version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit compared to the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and other current methods used by intensivists. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonneville R, de Montmollin E, Poujade J, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Souweine B, Darmon M, et al. Potentially modifiable factors contributing to sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(8):1075–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sonneville R, Verdonk F, Rauturier C, Klein IF, Wolff M, Annane D, et al. Understanding brain dysfunction in sepsis. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3(1):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tracey KJ. Reflexes in immunity. Cell. 2016;164(3):343–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharshar T, Porcher R, Siami S, Rohaut B, Bailly-Salin J, Hopkinson NS, et al. Brainstem responses can predict death and delirium in sedated patients in intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(8):1960–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rohaut B, Porcher R, Hissem T, Heming N, Chillet P, Djedaini K, et al. Brainstem response patterns in deeply-sedated critically-ill patients predict 28-day mortality. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(4):e0176012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Azabou E, Magalhaes E, Braconnier A, Yahiaoui L, Moneger G, Heming N, et al. Early standard electroencephalogram abnormalities predict mortality in septic intensive care unit patients. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(10):e0139969.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Azabou E, Navarro V, Kubis N, Gavaret M, Heming N, Cariou A, et al. Value and mechanisms of EEG reactivity in the prognosis of patients with impaired consciousness: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gelinas C, Needham DM, Slooter AJC, Pandharipande PP, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9):e825–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Skrobik Y, Chanques G. The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3(1):9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Girard TD, Thompson JL, Pandharipande PP, Brummel NE, Jackson JC, Patel MB, et al. Clinical phenotypes of delirium during critical illness and severity of subsequent long-term cognitive impairment: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(3):213–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Chanques G, Conseil M, Roger C, Constantin JM, Prades A, Carr J, et al. Immediate interruption of sedation compared with usual sedation care in critically ill postoperative patients (SOS-Ventilation): a randomised, parallel-group clinical trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(10):795–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Page VJ, Ely EW, Gates S, Zhao XB, Alce T, Shintani A, et al. Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1(7):515–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Constantin JM, Momon A, Mantz J, Payen JF, De Jonghe B, Perbet S, et al. Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in critical care patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(1):7–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Skrobik Y, Duprey MS, Hill NS, Devlin JW. Low-dose nocturnal dexmedetomidine prevents ICU delirium. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197(9):1147–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. SRLF Trial Group. Impact of oversedation prevention in ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial-the AWARE study. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ely EW. The ABCDEF bundle: science and philosophy of how ICU liberation serves patients and families. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):321–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Barnes-Daly MA, Phillips G, Ely EW. Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: implementing PAD guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):171–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schaller SJ, Anstey M, Blobner M, Edrich T, Grabitz SD, Gradwohl-Matis I, et al. Early, goal-directed mobilisation in the surgical intensive care unit: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10052):1377–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chanques G, Nelson J, Puntillo K. Five patient symptoms that you should evaluate every day. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(7):1347–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Messika J, Kalfon P, Ricard JD. Adjuvant therapies in critical care: music therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(11):1929–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Simons KS, Laheij RJ, van den Boogaard M, Moviat MA, Paling AJ, Polderman FN, et al. Dynamic light application therapy to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium in intensive-care patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(3):194–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stevens RD, Marshall SA, Cornblath DR, Hoke A, Needham DM, de Jonghe B, et al. A framework for diagnosing and classifying intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(10 Suppl):S299–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Horn J, Hermans G. Intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Handb Clin Neurol. 2017;141:531–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Larsson L. Experimental animal models of muscle wasting in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(9 Suppl):S484–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Witteveen E, Hoogland IC, Wieske L, Weber NC, Verhamme C, Schultz MJ, et al. Assessment of intensive care unit-acquired weakness in young and old mice: An E. coli septic peritonitis model. Muscle Nerve. 2016;53(1):127–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Witteveen E, Wieske L, Verhamme C, Schultz MJ, van Schaik IN, Horn J. Muscle and nerve inflammation in intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a systematic translational review. J Neurol Sci. 2014;345(1–2):15–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hermans G, Wilmer A, Meersseman W, Milants I, Wouters PJ, Bobbaers H, et al. Impact of intensive insulin therapy on neuromuscular complications and ventilator dependency in the medical intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(5):480–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fan E, Cheek F, Chlan L, Gosselink R, Hart N, Herridge MS, et al. An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice guideline: the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness in adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(12):1437–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sharshar T, Bastuji-Garin S, Stevens RD, Durand MC, Malissin I, Rodriguez P, et al. Presence and severity of intensive care unit-acquired paresis at time of awakening are associated with increased intensive care unit and hospital mortality. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(12):3047–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jaber S, Petrof BJ, Jung B, Chanques G, Berthet JP, Rabuel C, et al. Rapidly progressive diaphragmatic weakness and injury during mechanical ventilation in humans. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(3):364–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Levine S, Nguyen T, Taylor N, Friscia ME, Budak MT, Rothenberg P, et al. Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1327–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Demoule A, Jung B, Prodanovic H, Molinari N, Chanques G, Coirault C, et al. Diaphragm dysfunction on admission to the intensive care unit. Prevalence, risk factors, and prognostic impact-a prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(2):213–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jung B, Moury PH, Mahul M, de Jong A, Galia F, Prades A, et al. Diaphragmatic dysfunction in patients with ICU-acquired weakness and its impact on extubation failure. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(5):853–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Castro-Avila AC, Seron P, Fan E, Gaete M, Mickan S. Effect of early rehabilitation during intensive care unit stay on functional status: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0130722.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Moss M, Nordon-Craft A, Malone D, Van Pelt D, Frankel SK, Warner ML, et al. A randomized trial of an intensive physical therapy program for patients with acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(10):1101–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Wright SE, Thomas K, Watson G, Baker C, Bryant A, Chadwick TJ, et al. Intensive versus standard physical rehabilitation therapy in the critically ill (EPICC): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2018;73(3):213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hodgson CL, Stiller K, Needham DM, Tipping CJ, Harrold M, Baldwin CE, et al. Expert consensus and recommendations on safety criteria for active mobilization of mechanically ventilated critically ill adults. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):658.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hodgson CL, Capell E, Tipping CJ. Early mobilization of patients in intensive care: organization, communication and safety factors that influence translation into clinical practice. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Fossat G, Baudin F, Courtes L, Bobet S, Dupont A, Bretagnol A, et al. Effect of In-Bed leg cycling and electrical stimulation of the quadriceps on global muscle strength in critically ill adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(4):368–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Cariou A, Nolan JP, Sunde K. Intensive care medicine in 2050: managing cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(7):1041–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nolan JP, Soar J, Cariou A, Cronberg T, Moulaert VR, Deakin CD, et al. European resuscitation council and European society of intensive care medicine 2015 guidelines for post-resuscitation care. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(12):2039–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cariou A, Nolan JP, Sunde K. Ten strategies to increase survival of cardiac arrest patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(10):1820–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Oddo M, Sandroni C, Citerio G, Miroz JP, Horn J, Rundgren M, et al. Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double-blinded study. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(12):2102–2111.65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Velly L, Perlbarg V, Boulier T, Adam N, Delphine S, Luyt CE, et al. Use of brain diffusion tensor imaging for the prediction of long-term neurological outcomes in patients after cardiac arrest: a multicentre, international, prospective, observational, cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(4):317–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Granerod J, Ambrose HE, Davies NW, Clewley JP, Walsh AL, Morgan D, et al. Causes of encephalitis and differences in their clinical presentations in England: a multicentre, population-based prospective study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(12):835–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Mailles A, Stahl JP, Steering C, Investigators G. Infectious encephalitis in france in 2007: a national prospective study. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(12):1838–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. de Montmollin E, Demeret S, Brule N, Conrad M, Dailler F, Lerolle N, et al. Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor encephalitis in adult patients requiring intensive care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(4):491–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Titulaer MJ, McCracken L, Gabilondo I, Armangue T, Glaser C, Iizuka T, et al. Treatment and prognostic factors for long-term outcome in patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: an observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(2):157–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Dalmau J, Graus F. Antibody-mediated encephalitis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):840–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. de Boysson H, Zuber M, Naggara O, Neau JP, Gray F, Bousser MG, et al. Primary angiitis of the central nervous system: description of the first fifty-two adults enrolled in the French cohort of patients with primary vasculitis of the central nervous system. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(5):1315–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. John S, Hajj-Ali RA. CNS vasculitis. Semin Neurol. 2014;34(4):405–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Brophy GM, Bell R, Claassen J, Alldredge B, Bleck TP, Glauser T, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17(1):3–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Glauser T, Shinnar S, Gloss D, Alldredge B, Arya R, Bainbridge J, et al. Evidence-based guideline: treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children and adults: report of the guideline committee of the American Epilepsy Society. Epilepsy Curr. 2016;16(1):48–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Rossetti AO, Bleck TP. What’s new in status epilepticus? Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(9):1359–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Legriel S, Oddo M, Brophy GM. What’s new in refractory status epilepticus? Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(4):543–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Demeret S, Weiss N, Bolgert F, Navarro V. What is specialized care in status epilepticus and in which ICU? Neurocrit Care. 2013;19(1):1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Orinx C, Legros B, Gaspard N. Recent antiseizure medications in the Intensive Care Unit. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017;83(8):878–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Legriel S, Lemiale V, Schenck M, Chelly J, Laurent V, Daviaud F, et al. Hypothermia for neuroprotection in convulsive status epilepticus. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(25):2457–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lindekleiv H, Berge E, Bruins Slot KM, Wardlaw JM. Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10:CD009292.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Roaldsen MB, Lindekleiv H, Mathiesen EB, Berge E. Recanalisation therapies for wake-up stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8:010995.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, Yassi N, Kleinig TJ, Dowling RJ, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase before thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(17):1573–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kheiri B, Osman M, Abdalla A, Haykal T, Ahmed S, Hassan M, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase for management of acute ischemic stroke: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2018;46(4):440–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Touze E, Gruel Y, Gouin-Thibault I, De Maistre E, Susen S, Sie P, et al. Intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke in patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25(5):747-e52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Tazarourte K, Riou B, Tremey B, Samama CM, Vicaut E, Vigue B, et al. Guideline-concordant administration of prothrombin complex concentrate and vitamin K is associated with decreased mortality in patients with severe bleeding under vitamin K antagonist treatment (EPAHK study). Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Na SY, Mracsko E, van Ryn J, Veltkamp R. Idarucizumab improves outcome in murine brain hemorrhage related to dabigatran. Ann Neurol. 2015;78(1):137–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Frontera JA, Lewin JJ 3rd, Rabinstein AA, Aisiku IP, Alexandrov AW, Cook AM, et al. Guideline for reversal of antithrombotics in intracranial hemorrhage: executive summary. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(12):2251–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Wall J, Enblad P. Neurointensive care of patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and intracerebral haemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;58:83–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Soyer B, Rusca M, Lukaszewicz AC, Crassard I, Guichard JP, Bresson D, et al. Outcome of a cohort of severe cerebral venous thrombosis in intensive care. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Fam D, Saposnik G. Stroke outcomes research Canada working G. Critical care management of cerebral venous thrombosis. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2016;22(2):113–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Vergouwen MD, Vermeulen M, van Gijn J, Rinkel GJ, Wijdicks EF, Muizelaar JP, et al. Definition of delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage as an outcome event in clinical trials and observational studies: proposal of a multidisciplinary research group. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2391–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Diringer MN, Bleck TP, Claude Hemphill J 3rd, Menon D, Shutter L, Vespa P, et al. Critical care management of patients following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: recommendations from the Neurocritical Care Society’s Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference. Neurocrit Care. 2011;15(2):211–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Helbok R, Olson DM, Le Roux PD, Vespa P, Participants in the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality M. Intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure monitoring in non-TBI patients: special considerations. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21(Suppl 2):S85–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Miller C, Armonda R, Participants in the international multi-disciplinary consensus conference on multimodality M. Monitoring of cerebral blood flow and ischemia in the critically ill. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21:S121–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Hofmeijer J, Kappelle LJ, Algra A, Amelink GJ, van Gijn J, van der Worp HB, et al. Surgical decompression for space-occupying cerebral infarction (the Hemicraniectomy After Middle Cerebral Artery infarction with Life-threatening Edema Trial [HAMLET]): a multicentre, open, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(4):326–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, Adeoye OM, Bambakidis NC, Becker K, et al. 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(3):e46–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Cooper DJ, Rosenfeld JV, Murray L, Arabi YM, Davies AR, D’Urso P, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(16):1493–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, Corteen EA, Czosnyka M, Timothy J, et al. Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(12):1119–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, Ullman JS, Hawryluk GW, Bell MJ, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(1):6–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Albanese J, Leone M, Alliez JR, Kaya JM, Antonini F, Alliez B, et al. Decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury: evaluation of the effects at one year. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(10):2535–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Howard JL, Cipolle MD, Anderson M, Sabella V, Shollenberger D, Li PM, et al. Outcome after decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2008;65(2):380–5 (discussion 5-6).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Faried A, Satriawan FC, Arifin MZ. Feasibility of online traumatic brain injury prognostic corticosteroids randomisation after significant head injury (CRASH) model as a predictor of mortality. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:e239–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Lingsma H, Andriessen TM, Haitsema I, Horn J, van der Naalt J, Franschman G, et al. Prognosis in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the IMPACT models and the role of extracranial injuries. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(2):639–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Lingsma HF, Yue JK, Maas AI, Steyerberg EW, Manley GT, Investigators T-T. Outcome prediction after mild and complicated mild traumatic brain injury: external validation of existing models and identification of new predictors using the TRACK-TBI pilot study. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32(2):83–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Wintermark M, Coombs L, Druzgal TJ, Field AS, Filippi CG, Hicks R, et al. Traumatic brain injury imaging research roadmap. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(3):E12–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Wintermark M, Sanelli PC, Anzai Y, Tsiouris AJ, Whitlow CT. American College of Radiology Head Injury I. Imaging evidence and recommendations for traumatic brain injury: advanced neuro- and neurovascular imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(2):E1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Colgan NC, Cronin MM, Gobbo OL, O’Mara SM, O’Connor WT, Gilchrist MD. Quantitative MRI analysis of brain volume changes due to controlled cortical impact. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(7):1265–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Colgan NC, Gilchrist MD, Curran KM. Applying DTI white matter orientations to finite element head models to examine diffuse TBI under high rotational accelerations. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2010;103(2–3):304–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Galanaud D, Perlbarg V, Gupta R, Stevens RD, Sanchez P, Tollard E, et al. Assessment of white matter injury and outcome in severe brain trauma: a prospective multicenter cohort. Anesthesiology. 2012;117(6):1300–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

Each author has contributed for at least one section in the manuscript. All authors have critically revised and contributed to the draft of the manuscript and its final version. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

None.

Competing interests

MO has received speaker honoraria from Neuroptics, Laguna Hills, CA, USA. FST has received speaker honoraria from BARD and Nihon Khoden. LP has a patent on the use of DTI to assess neurological prognosis in brain injured patients and is co-founder of a company called Braintale, that will diffuse the use of this approach in clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable (review article).

Consent for publication

All authors agreed with the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable (review article).

Funding

This study was supported by no funding.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, CHUV-Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Mauro Oddo

  2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University of Lorraine and University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France

    Serge Bracard

  3. Medical Intensive Care Unit, Cochin Hospital, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France

    Alain Cariou

  4. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Montpellier Saint Eloi University Hospital, and PhyMedExp, University of Montpellier, INSERM, CNRS, 34295, Montpellier Cedex 5, France

    Gérald Chanques & Samir Jaber

  5. School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Citerio

  6. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium

    Béatrix Clerckx

  7. Service de Médecine Interne, Centre de Référence des Cytopénies Auto-Immunes de l’Adulte, Hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France

    Bertrand Godeau

  8. Fondation Adolphe de Rothschild, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

    Anne Godier

  9. Department of Intensive Care, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Janneke Horn

  10. Medical Intensive Care Unit, Montpellier Teaching Hospital, PhyMedex, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Boris Jung

  11. Service de Réanimation Médicale, GHRSMA, 68100, Mulhouse, France

    Khaldoun Kuteifan

  12. Service d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation, Hôpital Nord, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France

    Marc Leone

  13. ESGIB, ESCMID Study Group for Infectious Diseases of the Brain, Santé Publique France, 12, rue du Val-d’Osne, 94415, Saint-Maurice Cedex, France

    Alexandra Mailles

  14. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France

    Mikael Mazighi

  15. Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France

    Bruno Mégarbane

  16. Service de Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, CHI de Poissy-Saint Germain en Laye, Poissy, France

    Hervé Outin

  17. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Pitié-Salpetrière Hospital, Paris, France

    Louis Puybasset

  18. Medical and Surgical Neurointensive Care Centre, Hospital Sainte Anne, Paris, France

    Tarek Sharshar

  19. Istituto Anestesiologia e Rianimazione Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy

    Claudio Sandroni

  20. Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Hôpital Bichat-Claude, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France

    Romain Sonneville

  21. Neurocritical Care Unit, Department of Neurology, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Nicolas Weiss

  22. Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Route de Lennik, 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium

    Fabio Silvio Taccone

Authors
  1. Mauro Oddo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serge Bracard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alain Cariou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gérald Chanques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuseppe Citerio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Béatrix Clerckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bertrand Godeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anne Godier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Janneke Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Samir Jaber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Boris Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Khaldoun Kuteifan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Marc Leone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Alexandra Mailles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mikael Mazighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Bruno Mégarbane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Hervé Outin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Louis Puybasset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Tarek Sharshar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Claudio Sandroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Romain Sonneville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Nicolas Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Fabio Silvio Taccone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Silvio Taccone.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oddo, M., Bracard, S., Cariou, A. et al. Update in Neurocritical Care: a summary of the 2018 Paris international conference of the French Society of Intensive Care. Ann. Intensive Care 9, 47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0523-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-019-0523-x

Keywords