Nina E. Glass

"Letter to the Editor. Re-examining the influence of age and surgical intervention on pediatric intracranial gunshot wounds" published on 20 Sep 2024 by American Association of Neurological Surgeons.

Study Design: Clinical practice guideline development following the GRADE process. Objectives: Hemodynamic management is one of the only available treatment options that likely improves neurologic outcomes in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Augmenting mean arterial pressure (MAP) aims to improve blood perfusion and oxygen delivery to the injured spinal cord in order to minimize secondary ischemic damage to neural tissue. The objective of this guideline was to update the 2013 AANS/CNS recommendations on the hemodynamic management of patients with acute traumatic SCI, acknowledging that much has been published in this area since its publication. Specifically, we sought to make recommendations on 1. The range of mean arterial pressure (MAP) to be maintained by identifying an upper and lower MAP limit; 2. The duration of such MAP augmentation; and 3. The choice of vasopressor. Additionally, we sought to make a recommendation on spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) targets. Methods: A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included health care professionals from a wide range of clinical specialities, patient advocates, and individuals living with SCI. The GDG reviewed the 2013 AANS/CNS guidelines and voted on whether each recommendation should be endorsed or updated. A systematic review of the literature, following PRISMA standards and registered in PROSPERO, was conducted to inform the guideline development process and address the following key questions: (i) what are the effects of goal-directed interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? and (ii) what are the effects of particular monitoring techniques, perfusion ranges, pharmacological agents, and durations of treatment on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? The GDG combined the information from this systematic review with their clinical expertise in order to develop recommendations on a MAP target range (specifically an upper and lower limit to target), the optimal duration for MAP augmentation, and the use of vasopressors or inotropes. Using methods outlined by the GRADE working group, recommendations were formulated that considered the balance of benefits and harms, financial impact, acceptability, feasibility and patient preferences. Results: The GDG suggested that MAP should be augmented to at least 75-80 mmHg as the “lower limit,” but not actively augmented beyond an “upper limit” of 90-95 mmHg in order to optimize spinal cord perfusion in acute traumatic SCI. The quality of the evidence around the “target MAP” was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is weak. For duration of hemodynamic management, the GDG “suggested” that MAP be augmented for a duration of 3-7 days. Again, the quality of the evidence around the duration of MAP support was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is also weak. The GDG felt that a recommendation on the choice of vasopressor or the use of SCPP targets was not warranted, given the dearth of available evidence. Conclusion: We provide new recommendations for blood pressure management after acute SCI that acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence on the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery. It was felt that the low quality of existing evidence and uncertainty around the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery justified a greater range of MAP to target, and for a broader range of days post-injury than recommended in previous guidelines. While important knowledge gaps still remain regarding hemodynamic management, these recommendations represent current perspectives on the role of MAP augmentation for acute SCI.

In Reply We appreciate the comments by Cai et al for our recent publication and their framing of this article among associated work of the Pediatric Readiness S

Objective. Describe continuous infusion (CI) ketamine practices in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and evaluate its effect on pain/sedation scores, exposure to analgesics/sedatives, and adverse effects (AEs). Methods. Multicenter, retrospective, observational study in children Results. Twenty‐four patients from 4 PICUs were included; median (IQR) age 7 (1‐13.25) years, 54% female (n = 13), 92% intubated (n = 22), 25% on CI vasopressors (n = 6), and 33% on CI paralytics (n = 8). Ketamine indications were analgesia/sedation (n = 21, 87.5%) and status epilepticus (n = 3, 12.5%). Median starting dose was 0.5 (0.48–0.70) mg/kg/hr and continued for a median of 2.4 (1.3–4.4) days. There was a significant difference in mean proportion of time spent within goal pain score range (24H prior: 74% ± 14%, 0–24H: 85% ± 10%, and 25−48H: 72% ± 20%; p = 0.014). A significant reduction in median morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was seen (24H prior: 58 (8–195) mg vs. 0–24H: 4 (0–69) mg and p = 0.01), but this was not sustained (25−48H: 24 (2–246) mg and p = 0.29). Common AEs were tachycardia (63%), hypotension (54%), secretions/suctioning (29%), and emergence reactions (13%). Conclusions. Ketamine CI improved time in goal pain score range and significantly reduced MME, but this was not sustained. Larger prospective studies are needed in the pediatric population.

Despite the importance of specialized care for injured children, access to high-quality pediatric trauma care remains limited. Only 43% of US children live within an hour of a pediatric trauma center; in 15 states, fewer than 25% of children live within 30 miles of such a hospital.^1,2 In vast portions of the US, the only hospitals available to care for injured children are adult trauma centers or nontrauma hospitals, where the quality of pediatric care varies greatly.^3-6 To standardize and improve the emergency and trauma care of children, the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP)⁷ was created as a national quality improvement initiative to ensure that all emergency departments (EDs) have the pediatric-specific resources necessary to care for children (including equipment, personnel, care coordination, policies and procedures, safety processes, and quality improvement processes).^8-10 Detailed ED checklists and tool kits have also been developed to increase the level of readiness.⁷ Despite the association of high-readiness EDs with improved survival,^3,6,11,12 there is large variability in ED pediatric readiness among US trauma centers.^3,4 To improve care, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma incorporated assessment and improvement of ED pediatric readiness into its 2022 criteria for trauma center verification.¹³