Treatment with hypothermia, with the body temperature reaching 33 degrees C within eight hours after injury, is not effective in improving outcomes in patients with severe brain injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major public health problem globally. In the United States the incidence of closed head injuries admitted to hospitals is conservatively estimated to be 200 per 100,000 population, and the incidence of penetrating head injury is estimated to be 12 per 100,000, the highest of any developed country in the world. This yields an approximate number of 500,000 new cases each year, a sizeable proportion of which demonstrate signficant long-term disabilities. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of proven therapies for this disease. For a variety of reasons, clinical trials for this condition have been difficult to design and perform. Despite promising pre-clinical data, most of the trials that have been performed in recent years have failed to demonstrate any significant improvement in outcomes. The reasons for these failures have not always been apparent and any insights gained were not always shared. It was therefore feared that we were running the risk of repeating our mistakes. Recognizing the importance of TBI, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) sponsored a workshop that brought together experts from clinical, research, and pharmaceutical backgrounds. This workshop proved to be very informative and yielded many insights into previous and future TBI trials. This paper is an attempt to summarize the key points made at the workshop. It is hoped that these lessons will enhance the planning and design of future efforts in this important field of research.

There is still controversy over whether or not patients should be hyperventilated after traumatic brain injury, and a randomized trial has never been conducted. The theoretical advantages of hyperventilation are cerebral vasoconstriction for intracranial pressure (ICP) control and reversal of brain and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) acidosis. Possible disadvantages include cerebral vasoconstriction to such an extent that cerebral ischemia ensues, and only a short-lived effect on CSF pH with a loss of HCO3-buffer from CSF. The latter disadvantage might be overcome by the addition of the buffer tromethamine (THAM), which has shown some promise in experimental and clinical use. Accordingly, a trial was performed with patients randomly assigned to receive normal ventilation (PaCO2 35 +/- 2 mm Hg (mean +/- standard deviation): control group), hyperventilation (PaCO2 25 +/- 2 mm Hg: HV group), or hyperventilation plus THAM (PaCO2 25 +/- 2 mm Hg: HV + THAM group). Stratification into subgroups of patients with motor scores of 1-3 and 4-5 took place. Outcome was assessed according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale at 3, 6, and 12 months. There were 41 patients in the control group, 36 in the HV group, and 36 in the HV + THAM group. The mean Glasgow Coma Scale score for each group was 5.7 +/- 1.7, 5.6 +/- 1.7, and 5.9 +/- 1.7, respectively; this score and other indicators of severity of injury were not significantly different. A 100% follow-up review was obtained. At 3 and 6 months after injury the number of patients with a favorable outcome (good or moderately disabled) was significantly (p less than 0.05) lower in the hyperventilated patients than in the control and HV + THAM groups. This occurred only in patients with a motor score of 4-5. At 12 months posttrauma this difference was not significant (p = 0.13). Biochemical data indicated that hyperventilation could not sustain alkalinization in the CSF, although THAM could. Accordingly, cerebral blood flow (CBF) was lower in the HV + THAM group than in the control and HV groups, but neither CBF nor arteriovenous difference of oxygen data indicated the occurrence of cerebral ischemia in any of the three groups. Although mean ICP could be kept well below 25 mm Hg in all three groups, the course of ICP was most stable in the HV + THAM group. It is concluded that prophylactic hyperventilation is deleterious in head-injured patients with motor scores of 4-5.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

✓ This study describes the relationship between raised intracranial pressure (ICP), hypotension, and outcome from severe head injury. The study is based on information derived from the Traumatic Coma Data Bank where ICP records from a relatively large number of patients were available to help delineate the major factors influencing outcome. From the total data base of 1030 patients, 428 met minimum monitoring duration criteria for inclusion in the present analysis. Outcome was classified according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale score determined at 6 months postinjury. Arrays of comparably defined summary measures describing the patient's course were considered for ICP, blood pressure (BP), central perfusion pressure, and therapy intensity level. For instance, the array of ICP summary descriptors included the proportion of ICP readings greater than x, for x = 0 to 80 mm Hg by increments of 5 mm Hg. A total of 187 candidate summary descriptors were considered. A stepwise ordinal logistic regression was used to select the subset of candidate summary descriptors that best explained the 6-month outcome. As established previously, age, admission motor score, and abnormal pupils were each highly significant in explaining outcome. Beyond these factors, the proportion of hourly ICP readings greater than 20 mm Hg was next selected and was also highly significant in explaining outcome (p < 0.0001). In addition to the ICP factor, the cutoff point of 20 mm Hg was selected by the procedure as most indicative of outcome. With these four factors modeled, the next selected factor was the proportion of hourly BP readings less than 80 mm Hg. Again, the BP factor was highly significant in explaining outcome (p < 0.0001). As with the ICP factor, the BP cutoff point of 80 mm Hg was objectively selected as most indicative of outcome. In summary, the incidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from severe head trauma is strongly related to raised ICP and hypotension measured during the course of ICP management. Moreover, these ICP and BP factors provide a better indication of outcome than the similarly defined factors of central perfusion pressure or therapy intensity level.