Background Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based. Methods We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists’ decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations. Results We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination. Conclusions Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.

The time course of blood lactate levels could be helpful to assess a patient’s response to therapy. Although the focus of published studies has been largely on septic patients, many other studies have reported serial blood lactate levels in different groups of acutely ill patients. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Science Direct, and Embase until the end of February 2016 plus reference lists of relevant publications. We selected all observational and interventional studies that evaluated the capacity of serial blood lactate concentrations to predict outcome. There was no restriction based on language. We excluded studies in pediatric populations, experimental studies, and studies that did not report changes in lactate values or all-cause mortality rates. We separated studies according to the type of patients included. We collected data on the number of patients, timing of lactate measurements, minimum lactate level needed for inclusion if present, and suggested time interval for predictive use. A total of 96 studies met our criteria: 14 in general ICU populations, five in general surgical ICU populations, five in patients post cardiac surgery, 14 in trauma patients, 39 in patients with sepsis, four in patients with cardiogenic shock, eight in patients after cardiac arrest, three in patients with respiratory failure, and four in other conditions. A decrease in lactate levels over time was consistently associated with lower mortality rates in all subgroups of patients. Most studies reported changes over 6, 12 or 24 hrs, fewer used shorter time intervals. Lactate kinetics did not appear very different in patients with sepsis and other types of patients. A few studies suggested that therapy could be guided by these measurements. The observation of a better outcome associated with decreasing blood lactate concentrations was consistent throughout the clinical studies, and was not limited to septic patients. In all groups, the changes are relatively slow, so that lactate measurements every 1–2 hrs are probably sufficient in most acute conditions. The value of lactate kinetics appears to be valid regardless of the initial value.

Introduction: Increasing numbers of cancer patients are being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), either for cancer-related complications or treatment-associated side effects, yet there are relatively few data concerning the epidemiology and prognosis of cancer patients admitted to general ICUs. The aim of this study was to assess the characteristics of critically ill cancer patients, and to evaluate their prognosis. Methods: This was a substudy of the Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) study, a cohort, multicentre, observational study that included data from all adult patients admitted to one of 198 participating ICUs from 24 European countries during the study period. Patients were followed up until death, hospital discharge or for 60 days. Results: Of the 3147 patients enrolled in the SOAP study, 473 (15%) had a malignancy, 404 (85%) had solid tumours and 69 (15%) had haematological cancer. Patients with solid cancers had the same severity of illness as the non-cancer population, but were older, more likely to be a surgical admission and had a higher frequency of sepsis. Patients with haematological cancer were more severely ill and more commonly had sepsis, acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome, and renal failure than patients with other malignancies; these patients also had the highest hospital mortality rate (58%). The outcome of all cancer patients was comparable with that in the non-cancer population, with a 27% hospital mortality rate. However, in the subset of patients with more than three failing organs, more than 75% of patients with cancer died compared with about 50% of patients without cancer (p = 0.01). Conclusions: In this large European study, patients with cancer were more often admitted to the ICU for sepsis and respiratory complications than other ICU patients. Overall, the outcome of patients with solid cancer was similar to that of ICU patients without cancer, whereas patients with haematological cancer had a worse outcome.

Introduction: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a fungal infection that particularly affects immunocompromised hosts. Recently, several studies have indicated a high incidence of IA in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, few data are available on the epidemiology and outcome of patients with IA in this setting. Methods: An observational study including all patients with a positive Aspergillus culture during ICU stay was performed in 30 ICUs in 8 countries. Cases were classified as proven IA, putative IA or Aspergillus colonization according to recently validated criteria. Demographic, microbiologic and diagnostic data were collected. Outcome was recorded 12 weeks after Aspergillus isolation. Results: A total of 563 patients were included, of whom 266 were colonized (47%), 203 had putative IA (36%) and 94 had proven IA (17%). The lung was the most frequent site of infection (94%), and Aspergillus fumigatus the most commonly isolated species (92%). Patients with IA had higher incidences of cancer and organ transplantation than those with colonization. Compared with other patients, they were more frequently diagnosed with sepsis on ICU admission and more frequently received vasopressors and renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the ICU stay. Mortality was 38% among colonized patients, 67% in those with putative IA and 79% in those with proven IA (P < 0.001). Independent risk factors for death among patients with IA included older age, history of bone marrow transplantation, and mechanical ventilation, RRT and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at diagnosis. Conclusions: IA among critically ill patients is associated with high mortality. Patients diagnosed with proven or putative IA had greater severity of illness and more frequently needed organ support than those with Aspergillus spp colonization.

Background Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place. Methods Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting. Results We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms. Conclusions These protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.