Mechanical ventilation in patients with acute brain injury: recommendations of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine consensus

Purpose To provide clinical practice recommendations and generate a research agenda on mechanical ventilation and respiratory support in patients with acute brain injury (ABI). Methods An international consensus panel was convened including 29 clinician-scientists in intensive care medicine with exp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Intensive care medicine 2020-12, Vol.46 (12), p.2397-2410
Hauptverfasser: Robba, Chiara, Poole, Daniele, McNett, Molly, Asehnoune, Karim, Bösel, Julian, Bruder, Nicolas, Chieregato, Arturo, Cinotti, Raphael, Duranteau, Jacques, Einav, Sharon, Ercole, Ari, Ferguson, Niall, Guerin, Claude, Siempos, Ilias I., Kurtz, Pedro, Juffermans, Nicole P., Mancebo, Jordi, Mascia, Luciana, McCredie, Victoria, Nin, Nicolas, Oddo, Mauro, Pelosi, Paolo, Rabinstein, Alejandro A., Neto, Ary Serpa, Seder, David B., Skrifvars, Markus B., Suarez, Jose I., Taccone, Fabio Silvio, van der Jagt, Mathieu, Citerio, Giuseppe, Stevens, Robert D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To provide clinical practice recommendations and generate a research agenda on mechanical ventilation and respiratory support in patients with acute brain injury (ABI). Methods An international consensus panel was convened including 29 clinician-scientists in intensive care medicine with expertise in acute respiratory failure, neurointensive care, or both, and two non-voting methodologists. The panel was divided into seven subgroups, each addressing a predefined clinical practice domain relevant to patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with ABI, defined as acute traumatic brain or cerebrovascular injury. The panel conducted systematic searches and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to evaluate evidence and formulate questions. A modified Delphi process was implemented with four rounds of voting in which panellists were asked to respond to questions (rounds 1–3) and then recommendation statements (final round). Strong recommendation, weak recommendation, or no recommendation were defined when > 85%, 75–85%, and 
ISSN:0342-4642
1432-1238
DOI:10.1007/s00134-020-06283-0