Suppr超能文献

早期常规使用麻痹药物控制重度颅脑损伤患者的颅内压:有必要吗?

Early, routine paralysis for intracranial pressure control in severe head injury: is it necessary?

作者信息

Hsiang J K, Chesnut R M, Crisp C B, Klauber M R, Blunt B A, Marshall L F

机构信息

Division of Neurological Surgery, University of California Medical Center, San Diego 92103-1990.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 1994 Sep;22(9):1471-6. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199409000-00019.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of early, routine use of neuromuscular blocking agents for intracranial pressure management in patients with severe head injury.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of data from the Traumatic Coma Data Bank. The Traumatic Coma Data Bank was a collaborative project of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke that involved four Level I trauma centers. The Traumatic Coma Data Bank prospectively collected data on 1,030 severe head-injured patients (Glasgow Coma Score of < or = 8) between 1984 and 1987.

SETTING

Four Level I trauma centers coordinated by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

PATIENTS

A total of 514 Traumatic Coma Data Bank patients who met study inclusion criteria were divided into two groups: group 1 consisted of 239 patients who were pharmacologically paralyzed starting within the first intensive care unit (ICU) shift or < or = 6 hrs into the second shift and lasting for at least 12 hrs. Group 2 contained the remaining 275 patients who did not fulfill these criteria.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We analyzed the acute care course of these patients from the time of injury through admission, resuscitation, and ICU stay, as well as their rehabilitation follow-up results for < or = 1 yr. These two groups did not differ significantly regarding admission intracranial computed tomography diagnosis, admission Glasgow motor score, percentage of monitored time that intracranial pressure was > or = 20 mm Hg, or frequency of initial intracranial pressure > or = 20 mm Hg. In group 2, more patients were aged > 40 yrs (24% vs. 15% in group 1) or had admission hypotension (33% in group 2 vs. 25% in group 1). Multivariate regression analysis showed that ICU stay was significantly longer in group 1 (mean 7.76 days) than group 2 (mean 4.84 days; p < .001). The occurrence of pneumonia was significantly higher in group 1 (29% vs. 15%, p < .001). There was a tendency toward a higher occurrence of sepsis in group 1, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (11% vs. 7%, p = .08). The final Glasgow Outcome Scale scores for the two groups were not significantly different in those survivors with good and moderate outcomes. Although there were more deaths in group 2 (39% vs. 24%, p < .001), there were more vegetative or severely disabled survivors in group 1 (8% vs. 4% and 21% vs. 13%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that early, routine, long-term use of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients with severe head injuries to manage intracranial pressure does not improve overall outcome and may actually be detrimental because of the prolongation of their ICU stay and the increased frequency of extracranial complications associated with pharmacologic paralysis. We suggest that routine early management of the head-injured patient in the ICU should be accomplished using sedation alone and that neuromuscular blockade should be generally reserved for patients with intracranial hypertension who require escalation of treatment intensity.

摘要

目的

探讨早期常规使用神经肌肉阻滞剂对重型颅脑损伤患者颅内压管理的疗效。

设计

对创伤昏迷数据库的数据进行回顾性分析。创伤昏迷数据库是美国国立神经疾病和中风研究所的一个合作项目,涉及四个一级创伤中心。该数据库在1984年至1987年间前瞻性收集了1030例重型颅脑损伤患者(格拉斯哥昏迷评分≤8分)的数据。

地点

由美国国立神经疾病和中风研究所协调的四个一级创伤中心。

患者

共有514例符合研究纳入标准的创伤昏迷数据库患者被分为两组:第1组由239例患者组成,这些患者在第一个重症监护病房(ICU)班次内或第二个班次开始6小时内开始接受药物性麻痹治疗,持续至少12小时。第2组包括其余275例不符合这些标准的患者。

测量指标及主要结果

我们分析了这些患者从受伤到入院、复苏以及在ICU住院期间的急性治疗过程,以及他们≤1年的康复随访结果。两组在入院时颅内计算机断层扫描诊断、入院时格拉斯哥运动评分、颅内压≥20 mmHg的监测时间百分比或初始颅内压≥20 mmHg的频率方面无显著差异。在第2组中,年龄>40岁的患者更多(24% vs. 第1组的15%)或入院时存在低血压(第2组为33% vs. 第1组的25%)。多因素回归分析显示,第1组的ICU住院时间显著长于第2组(平均7.76天 vs. 4.84天;p<0.001)。第1组肺炎的发生率显著更高(29% vs. 1%,p<0.001)。第1组败血症的发生率有升高趋势,但差异未达到统计学意义(11% vs. 7%,p = 0.08)。两组中预后良好和中等的幸存者的最终格拉斯哥预后量表评分无显著差异。虽然第2组的死亡人数更多(39% vs. 24%,p<0.001),但第组植物状态或严重残疾的幸存者更多(分别为8% vs. 4%和21% vs. 13%)。

结论

我们的研究结果表明,在重型颅脑损伤患者中早期、常规、长期使用神经肌肉阻滞剂来管理颅内压并不能改善总体预后,实际上可能有害,因为这会延长患者在ICU的住院时间,并增加与药物性麻痹相关的颅外并发症的发生率。我们建议,ICU中对颅脑损伤患者的常规早期管理应仅使用镇静,神经肌肉阻滞一般应保留给需要加强治疗强度的颅内高压患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验