Hemodynamic and Neuro-Monitoring For Neurocritically-Ill Patients: An International Survey of Intensivists

Abstract Purpose To investigate multimodality systemic and neuro-monitoring practices in acute brain injury (ABI), and to analyze differences among “neurointensivists” (NI; clinical practice comprised >1/3 by neurocritical care), and other intensivists (OI). Methods Anonymous 22-question web-based survey among physician members of SCCM and ESICM. Results 655 responded (66% completion rate); 422 (65%) were OI and 226 (35%) NI. More NI follow hemodynamic protocols for TBI (44.5% vs. 33%, P = .007) and SAH (38% vs. 21%, P < 000.1). For CPP optimization, NI use more arterial-waveform-analysis (AWA) (45% vs. 35%, P = .019), and ultrasound (37.5% vs. 28%, P = .023); NI use more PbtO2 (28% vs. 10%, P < .001). In the case scenario of raised ICP/low PbtO2 , most employ analgesia and/or sedation (47%) and osmotherapy (38%). More NI use pressure reactivity (vasopressor use OI 23% vs. NI 34.5%, P = .014). For DCI, more NI target cardiac index (CI) (35% vs. 21%, P < .001), and fluid responsiveness (62.5% vs. 53%, P = .03). Also, NI use more angiography (57% vs. 43.5%, P = .004), TCD (56.5% vs. 38%, P < .001), CTP (32% vs.16%, P < .001) and PbtO2 (18% vs. 7.5%, P = .001). Conclusions Intensivists with exposure to ABI patients employ more neuro- and hemodynamic monitoring. We found large heterogeneity and low overall use of advanced brain-physiology parameters.