No abstract

No abstract

Background The use of processed electroencephalography (pEEG) for depth of sedation (DOS) monitoring is increasing in anesthesia; however, how to use of this type of monitoring for critical care adult patients within the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of international experts consisting of 21 clinicians involved in monitoring DOS in ICU patients was carefully selected on the basis of their expertise in neurocritical care and neuroanesthesiology. Panelists were assigned four domains (techniques for electroencephalography [EEG] monitoring, patient selection, use of the EEG monitors, competency, and training the principles of pEEG monitoring) from which a list of questions and statements was created to be addressed. A Delphi method based on iterative approach was used to produce the final statements. Statements were classified as highly appropriate or highly inappropriate (median rating ≥ 8), appropriate (median rating ≥ 7 but < 8), or uncertain (median rating < 7) and with a strong disagreement index (DI) (DI < 0.5) or weak DI (DI ≥ 0.5 but < 1) consensus. Results According to the statements evaluated by the panel, frontal pEEG (which includes a continuous colored density spectrogram) has been considered adequate to monitor the level of sedation (strong consensus), and it is recommended by the panel that all sedated patients (paralyzed or nonparalyzed) unfit for clinical evaluation would benefit from DOS monitoring (strong consensus) after a specific training program has been performed by the ICU staff. To cover the gap between knowledge/rational and routine application, some barriers must be broken, including lack of knowledge, validation for prolonged sedation, standardization between monitors based on different EEG analysis algorithms, and economic issues. Conclusions Evidence on using DOS monitors in ICU is still scarce, and further research is required to better define the benefits of using pEEG. This consensus highlights that some critically ill patients may benefit from this type of neuromonitoring.

CHL type is the least common major form of EBV-related PTLD but rarely occurs in pediatric recipients; development of CHL subsequent to other PTLD subtypes in the same transplant recipient is even more unusual. Because of its rarity, indications on the best treatment strategy are limited. Patients have been mostly treated with standard HL chemotherapy/radiotherapy, and prognosis seems more favorable than other monomorphic PTLDs. Herein, we describe a pediatric case of EBV-associated, stage IV-B, CHL arising in a heart allograft recipient eight yr after diagnosis of B-cell polymorphic PTLD. The patient was successfully treated with adjusted-dose HL chemotherapy and autologous EBV-specific CTL, without discontinuation of maintenance immunosuppression. At two yr from therapy completion, the patient is in CR with stable organ function. With this strategy, it may be possible to reproduce the good prognostic data reported for CHL-type PTLD, with decreased risk of organ toxicity or rejection.