Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The Alfred Hospital.
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Prahran, Vic.
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2023 Jul 1;35(3):265-273. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000836. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
Although sedative use is near-ubiquitous in the acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (m-sTBI), the evidence base for these agents is undefined. This review summarizes the evidence for analgosedative agent use in the intensive care unit management of m-sTBI. Clinical studies of sedative and analgosedative agents currently utilized in adult m-sTBI management (propofol, ketamine, benzodiazepines, opioids, and alpha-2 agonists) were identified and assessed for relevance and methodological quality. The primary outcome was the effect of the analgosedative agent on intracranial pressure (ICP). Secondary outcomes included intracranial hemodynamic and metabolic parameters, systemic hemodynamic parameters, measures of therapeutic intensity, and clinical outcomes. Of 594 articles identified, 61 met methodological review criteria, and 40 were included in the qualitative summary; of these, 33 were prospective studies, 18 were randomized controlled trials, and 8 were blinded. There was consistent evidence for the efficacy of sedative agents in the management of m-sTBI and raised ICP, but the overall quality of the evidence was poor, consisting of small studies (median sample size, 23.5) of variable methodological quality. Propofol and midazolam achieve the goals of sedation without notable differences in efficacy or safety, although high-dose propofol may disrupt cerebral autoregulation. Dexmedetomidine and propofol/ dexmedetomidine combination may cause clinically significant hypotension. Dexmedetomidine was effective to achieve a target sedation score. De novo opioid boluses were associated with increased ICP and reduced cerebral perfusion pressure. Ketamine bolus and infusions were not associated with increased ICP and may reduce the incidence of cortical spreading depolarization events. In conclusion, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence to inform the optimal use of analgosedative agents in the management of m-sTBI, inferring significant scope for further research.
尽管在中重度创伤性脑损伤(m-sTBI)的急性治疗中,镇静剂的使用几乎无处不在,但这些药物的证据基础尚不清楚。本综述总结了在 m-sTBI 重症监护管理中使用镇痛镇静药物的证据。确定并评估了目前用于成人 m-sTBI 管理的镇静和镇痛药物(丙泊酚、氯胺酮、苯二氮䓬类、阿片类药物和 α-2 激动剂)的临床研究的相关性和方法学质量。主要结局是镇痛镇静药物对颅内压(ICP)的影响。次要结局包括颅内血流动力学和代谢参数、全身血流动力学参数、治疗强度指标和临床结局。在确定的 594 篇文章中,有 61 篇符合方法学综述标准,有 40 篇被纳入定性总结;其中 33 篇为前瞻性研究,18 篇为随机对照试验,8 篇为盲法研究。有充分证据表明镇静剂在治疗 m-sTBI 和升高 ICP 方面有效,但证据的总体质量较差,包括样本量较小(中位数为 23.5)且方法学质量各异的研究。丙泊酚和咪达唑仑在镇静效果方面没有显著差异,也没有明显的安全性差异,尽管高剂量丙泊酚可能会破坏脑自动调节。右美托咪定和丙泊酚/右美托咪定联合使用可能会引起临床显著的低血压。右美托咪定可有效达到目标镇静评分。新使用阿片类药物冲击剂量与 ICP 升高和脑灌注压降低有关。氯胺酮冲击和输注与 ICP 升高无关,可能降低皮质扩散性去极化事件的发生率。总之,目前几乎没有高质量的证据来为 m-sTBI 管理中使用镇痛镇静药物提供最佳信息,这表明需要进一步开展研究。