Top Banner
Prognosticat ion After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill
45

Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Dec 25, 2015

Download

Documents

Oswald Barker
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Prognostication After Brain

InjuryOrgan Donation Midland Collaborative

7th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill

Page 2: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Are we able to prognosticate?

Page 3: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

No

Page 4: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

..or not accurately for an individual patient…

Page 5: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Hippocratic aphorism

“No head injury is so serious that it

should be despaired of nor so trivial that it can be

ignored”

Page 6: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Inappropriately ambiguous

Unduly optimistic

Unnecessarily pessimistic

Just about right

Page 7: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

• Experienced neurosurgeon assessed 100 patients; 56% correct prognosis (Kaufman)

• If the initial GCS is reliable, 20% with the worst initial score will survive; 8-10% with GOS 4-5

Page 8: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Probabilities not prophecies!

Page 9: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)

Unfavourable• 1 Death• 2 Persistent vegetative state• 3 Severe disability (dependent on daily support)

------------------------------------------Favourable

• 4 Moderate disability (disabled, independent)• 5 Good recovery (resumption of normal life)

Page 10: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)

Page 11: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Brain Injuries• Traumatic • Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage• Hypoxia

Page 12: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Traumatic• IMPACT/CRASH/TRISS/APACHE 2• Early prognostic indicators• Age• Motor part of GCS• Pupils• Imaging findings

Page 13: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Age• Poor outcome increases with increasing age • Poor outcome increases significantly in patients

aged > 60y• Independent of the increased frequency of

complications in elderly

Page 14: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Age vs outcomeAge (y) GOS 1 (%) GOS 5 (%)1-4 17 175-9 22 6110-14 20 4015-19 25 4021-40 35 3341-60 55 1561-80 80 5

(Alberico. Class II)

Page 15: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Age vs mortalityAge (y) GOS 1 (%)11-20 3521-30 3931-40 4541-50 5551-60 6661-70 7771-80 8581-90 95

(Teasdale. Class I)

Page 16: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Recent studies

• No age threshold• 40-50% increase in poor outcome each additional

10y (Mukkelhoven 2003, 5600pts)

Page 17: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Pupils

• Post resuscitation responses• “> 4mm is a dilated pupil”• Bilateral absent pupil response > 70% PPV of

poor outcome

Page 18: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Pupils vs GOS 1-2 outcome

No of patients in study

Bilat reactive

%

Unilateral fixed

%

Bilat fixed

%600 42 - 95

305 29 54 90

213 36 - 91

746 32 34 74

Ave 35 44 88

(www.braintrauma.org)

Page 19: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

GCS (Motor)• The motor component of GCS provides the best

predictive value

GCS (M)

GOS 1 (%)

1 88.92-4 56.25 12.56 0.4

(Colohan. Class II)

Page 20: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Imaging findings• Multiple lesions worse than single• Midline shift > 15 mm worse than < 5 mm• Basal cisterns compressed• Traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage

Page 21: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Basal cisterns• Compressed basal cisterns x 3 increased risk of raised ICP• x 2-3 increased risk of mortality• Direct relationship with pupils

Page 22: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Herniation

Page 23: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

GOS vs basal cisterns

Basal cisterns

GOS %

1 2 3 4 5

Normal 22 6 16 21 35

Compressed

39 7 18 17 19

Absent 77 2 6 4 11

(218 pts with GCS <8)

Page 24: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (TrSAH)

• Present in severe TBI (26-53%)• Mortality increased x2• Extent of TrSAH related to outcome• TrSAH is significant independent prognostic

indicator

Page 25: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

SAH gradeFisher Grade Unfavourabl

e (GOS 1-3)Favourable (GOS 4-5)

1 (no blood) 0 14 2 (diffuse/ <1mm)

6 13

3 (clot/ >1mm) 15 6 4 (ICH or IVH) 7 0

(Harders. Class II)

Page 26: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

ICP monitoring• Helps manage ICP• Does it alter outcome?• Useful if ICP > MAP• Pressures can be very high in children with good

outcome

Page 27: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

MRI

• Using conventional imaging, presence of bilateral lesions in the dorsolateral upper brainstem appears to be the factor of greatest adverse prognostic significance.

• With MRS, low NAA/creatine ratio in the hemispheres and in the pons predicts a poor outcome.

(Weiss et al, Crit Care 2007; 11(5): 230)

Page 28: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Neurosurger

y registrars’

3am

hopelessnes

s chart

Page 29: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

Page 30: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Natural history• Peak incidence 55-60y• 10-20% die before reaching medical care• 30 day mortality 45%• Overall mortality 51%• 1/3 survivors remain dependent• Of the other 2/3 – only 30% patients achieve their

previous quality of life

Page 31: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Outcome• Related to grade on admission

• Age >70y fare worse for each neurological grade• Amount of blood on CT head (Fisher)

(Drake et al. Report of World Federation of Neurological Surgeons Committee on a Universal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Grading Scale. J Neurosurg. Jun 1988;68(6):985-6)

WFNS grade

GCS score

Major deficit

1 15 -

2 13-14 -

3 13-14 +

4 7-12 + or -

5 3-6 + or -

Page 32: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Physiology

• Average blood loss < 10mls• Rapid increase in ICP to > blood pressure• Cerebral stand still• Lose consciousness/ vomit/ severe headache• Possible seizure

• Permanent vs transient effect upon brain• Cerebral Stunning - “TIA of the midbrain”

Page 33: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

When to prognosticate?

• Recommendation is to wait 6 hours to test• If diabetes insipidus/ hypothermia then likely

permanent• Keep assessing• Support in the interim• Allows for re-perfusion of central structures

Page 34: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Hypoxia

Page 35: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Pre-hospital• Poor outcome associated with:

• Type of arrhythmia: shockable >> non-shockable• Age > 70 years• Anoxia / no-flow time (witnessed) >25 mins• Duration of CPR• Co-morbidities

• Variable, with poor sensitivity / specificity• Cannot be used to reliably prognosticate

Page 36: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Clinical• Affected by therapeutic hypothermia (sedation) • GCS• Motor response to pain• Corneal reflexes

• Unaffected• Pupillary reflexes • Seizures / early myoclonus

(Cronberg et al. Recommendations from the Swedish Resuscitation Council. Resuscitation. 2013; 84(7): 867–72)

Page 37: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Imaging• MRI

• 4 stages• MRI sensitive but non-specific as single prognosticator • Grey-white-matter ratio (GWR)• Recent data suggests GWR <1.16 predicts poor

outcome (100% specific / 38% sensitive)

(Scheel et al. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 2013; 21(1): 23)

Page 38: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Biomarkers• S-100B: calcium-binding astroglial protein• Neuron-specific enolase (NSE): isomer of enolase,

located in neurones• Ammonia & lactate

References

Intensive Care Society. Standards for the management of patients after cardiac arrest. 2008 Oct. http://www.ics.ac.uk/ics-homepage/guidelines-standards/ (accessed 12/09/2013)

Huntgeburth et al. Changes in neuron-specific enolase are more suitable than its absolute serum levels for the prediction of neurologic outcome in hypothermia-treated patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Neurocritical Care. 2014;20(3):358-366 Shinozaki et al. Blood ammonia and lactate levels on hospital arrival as a predictive biomarker in patients with out-of-hospitalcardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2011; 82(4): 404–9.

Page 39: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Neurophysiology• SSEPs

• Bilateral median nerve stimulation• Measure cortical (N20) or shoulder (N9) potentials• Reliable specific test of neurological outcome (even with

hypothermia)

• EEG• Burst suppression / generalised epileptiform discharge

predict poor outcome• Issues of accuracy (not recommended)

Page 40: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.
Page 41: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Seizures• Seizures / myoclonus post-arrest + during cooling

associated with poor outcome• Myoclonic jerks on day 3, or after warming, do not

predict poor outcome• Lance-Adams, action-induced myoclonus without LOC

(Yadavmali et al. The Lance-Adams syndrome: helpful or just hopeful, after cardiopulmonary arrest. Journal of the Intensive Care Society. 2011; 12(4): 324 – 328)

Page 42: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Can we prognosticate?

Good Bad

EarlyReaction to pain (GCS M ≥ 5)Normal CTReactive EEG

Myoclonic status (+/- EEG)Reduced GWRIncrease in biomarkers

Late

Reaction to pain (GCS M ≥ 5)Normal CTLow biomarkersReactive EEG

GCS M 1 – 2Pupils / cornea unreactiveSSEP: bilateral lack of N20Abnormal CT / MRIHigh levels of biomarker

(Recommendations from the Swedish Resuscitation Council. Resuscitation. 2013; 84(7): 867–72)

Page 43: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

When to prognosticate?

• Traditional guidance• 72 hours after arrest/event

• If cooled• 72 hours after reaching normothermia

(Wijdickset al. Neurology. 2006; 67(2): 203–10)

Page 44: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Are we able to prognosticate in patients with brain injury?

Page 45: Prognostication After Brain Injury Organ Donation Midland Collaborative 7 th May 2015 Birmingham Maria Cartmill.

Conclusion• Not early

• We can give an early probability

• MDT approach recommended

• Time