Cargando…

Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND: Severe head injury (SHI) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity across the world. The current paradigm of management of SHI involves admission in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV), and intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Such resources are expensive and ofte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sundaram, Ponraj Kamatchi, Arora, Pankaj, Ramalingam, Jinendrakumar, D’Costa, Jorson
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29492115
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_221_16
_version_ 1783301450020945920
author Sundaram, Ponraj Kamatchi
Arora, Pankaj
Ramalingam, Jinendrakumar
D’Costa, Jorson
author_facet Sundaram, Ponraj Kamatchi
Arora, Pankaj
Ramalingam, Jinendrakumar
D’Costa, Jorson
author_sort Sundaram, Ponraj Kamatchi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Severe head injury (SHI) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity across the world. The current paradigm of management of SHI involves admission in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV), and intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Such resources are expensive and often unavailable in the developing world. OBJECTIVE: MV or ICP monitoring was unavailable for our patients due to the scarcity of resources. Hence, other alternatives were considered to prevent secondary brain injury due to hypoxia. This study assessed the outcome after SHI when managed with an early tracheostomy (ET). METHODS: This prospective observational study over 13 months included all medically managed SHI patients without MV or ICP monitoring. The Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) was assessed at discharge and compared with published historical data reported after treatment in an ICU environment. RESULTS: Our study included 53 unoperated patients with SHI among 1862 patients with traumatic brain injury. Overall mortality was 24.5% (13/53) and compared favorably with reported mortality of 25%–40% reported from centers using intensive management. At discharge, the favorable outcome with a GOS of 4 or 5 was seen in 39.6% (21/53). CONCLUSION: With ET, the results of management of SHI in our patients were comparable to results reported after MV in an ICU environment. Hence, ET is a cost-effective alternative when resources are scarce. MV should be used if hypoxia persists after tracheostomy. Although MV effectively prevents hypoxia, it has complications. We conclude that although MV was unavailable for our patients, they did not have the complications associated with it.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5820882
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58208822018-02-28 Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study Sundaram, Ponraj Kamatchi Arora, Pankaj Ramalingam, Jinendrakumar D’Costa, Jorson Asian J Neurosurg Original Article BACKGROUND: Severe head injury (SHI) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity across the world. The current paradigm of management of SHI involves admission in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV), and intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Such resources are expensive and often unavailable in the developing world. OBJECTIVE: MV or ICP monitoring was unavailable for our patients due to the scarcity of resources. Hence, other alternatives were considered to prevent secondary brain injury due to hypoxia. This study assessed the outcome after SHI when managed with an early tracheostomy (ET). METHODS: This prospective observational study over 13 months included all medically managed SHI patients without MV or ICP monitoring. The Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) was assessed at discharge and compared with published historical data reported after treatment in an ICU environment. RESULTS: Our study included 53 unoperated patients with SHI among 1862 patients with traumatic brain injury. Overall mortality was 24.5% (13/53) and compared favorably with reported mortality of 25%–40% reported from centers using intensive management. At discharge, the favorable outcome with a GOS of 4 or 5 was seen in 39.6% (21/53). CONCLUSION: With ET, the results of management of SHI in our patients were comparable to results reported after MV in an ICU environment. Hence, ET is a cost-effective alternative when resources are scarce. MV should be used if hypoxia persists after tracheostomy. Although MV effectively prevents hypoxia, it has complications. We conclude that although MV was unavailable for our patients, they did not have the complications associated with it. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5820882/ /pubmed/29492115 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_221_16 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Asian Journal of Neurosurgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sundaram, Ponraj Kamatchi
Arora, Pankaj
Ramalingam, Jinendrakumar
D’Costa, Jorson
Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study
title Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study
title_full Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study
title_fullStr Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study
title_short Is Mechanical Ventilation Mandatory for the Management of Severe Head Injury? Outcome in 53 Medically Managed Severe Head Injury Patients, Without Ventilatory Support: A Prospective Study
title_sort is mechanical ventilation mandatory for the management of severe head injury? outcome in 53 medically managed severe head injury patients, without ventilatory support: a prospective study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29492115
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_221_16
work_keys_str_mv AT sundaramponrajkamatchi ismechanicalventilationmandatoryforthemanagementofsevereheadinjuryoutcomein53medicallymanagedsevereheadinjurypatientswithoutventilatorysupportaprospectivestudy
AT arorapankaj ismechanicalventilationmandatoryforthemanagementofsevereheadinjuryoutcomein53medicallymanagedsevereheadinjurypatientswithoutventilatorysupportaprospectivestudy
AT ramalingamjinendrakumar ismechanicalventilationmandatoryforthemanagementofsevereheadinjuryoutcomein53medicallymanagedsevereheadinjurypatientswithoutventilatorysupportaprospectivestudy
AT dcostajorson ismechanicalventilationmandatoryforthemanagementofsevereheadinjuryoutcomein53medicallymanagedsevereheadinjurypatientswithoutventilatorysupportaprospectivestudy