Global Survey of Outcomes of Neurocritical Care Patients: Analysis of the PRINCE Study Part 2

Abstract

Background Neurocritical care is devoted to the care of critically ill patients with acute neurological or neurosurgical emergencies. There is limited information regarding epidemiological data, disease characteristics, variability of clinical care, and in-hospital mortality of neurocritically ill patients worldwide. We addressed these issues in the Point PRevalence In Neurocritical CarE (PRINCE) study, a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. Methods We recruited patients from various intensive care units (ICUs) admitted on a pre-specified date, and the investigators recorded specific clinical care activities they performed on the subjects during their first 7 days of admission or discharge (whichever came first) from their ICUs and at hospital discharge. In this manuscript, we analyzed the final data set of the study that included patient admission characteristics, disease type and severity, ICU resources, ICU and hospital length of stay, and inhospital mortality. We present descriptive statistics to summarize data from the case report form. We tested differences between geographically grouped data using parametric and nonparametric testing as appropriate. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Results We analyzed data from 1545 patients admitted to 147 participating sites from 31 countries of which most were from North America (69%, N = 1063). Globally, there was variability in patient characteristics, admission diagnosis, ICU treatment team and resource allocation, and in-hospital mortality. Seventy-three percent of the participating centers were academic, and the most common admitting diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (13%). The majority of patients were male (59%), a half of whom had at least two comorbidities, and median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality included age (OR 1.

Machine Learning Applications in the Neuro ICU: A Solution to Big Data Mayhem?

“…This limitation will prove to be challenging to overcome in neuro-ICU research as neuro-ICUs tend not to have large patient volumes, and the disease processes often presenting in the neuro-ICU are diverse ( 1 ). Software that easily collects and integrates waveform and imaging data with electronic medical records, i.e., Sickbay and CNS Monitor, could alleviate this issue, but their implementation so far has been sparse ( 49 , 50 ).…”

“…Care-provider teams in the neurological intensive care units (neuro ICUs) routinely interpret large and heterogeneous patient datasets including data types such as physiological waveforms, continuous electroencephalograms, laboratory tests, and images ( 1 ). This has proven to be extensively difficult and time consuming, and may sometimes result in ICU providers being unable to incorporate critical information into clinical decision-making in a way which may impact patient outcomes.…”

The Curing Coma Campaign: Framing Initial Scientific Challenges—Proceedings of the First Curing Coma Campaign Scientific Advisory Council Meeting

“…By bridging current consciousness science with new research regarding patients with DOC across a broad array of initial causes, the intent is to develop an enduring framework for studying, promoting awareness, and developing treatments. Furthermore, as neurocritical care expands worldwide, it is a priority to identify ways to improve care that can be implemented across differently resourced environments [16,17].…”

A Perspective from the Neurocritical Care Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Team-Based Care for Neurological Critical Illness

“…Additionally, there are robust retrospective data showing similar benefit from deploying an NCC service in an institution previously without a subspecialty-led NCC team for the care of patients with ICH, ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and subarachnoid hemorrhage [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. The most recent data demonstrate benefit both in the USA and internationally [16][17][18][19][20]. The Standards manuscript, similar to the constructs in the ACS Committee on Trauma's Resources for the Optimal Care of the Injured Patient, bases its criteria largely on ICU structure and staffing in the USA, which may embrace a different structure and be underpinned by different resources.…”