Dataset Information

Homocysteine Plasmatic Concentration in Brain-Injured Neurocritical Care Patients: Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) is considered as an independent risk factor for several diseases, such as cardiovascular, neurological and autoimmune conditions. Atherothrombotic events, as a result of endothelial dysfunction and increased inflammation, are the main mechanisms involved in vascular damage. This review article reports clinical evidence on the relationship between the concentration of plasmatic homocysteine (Hcy) and acute brain injury (ABI) in neurocritical care patients.

Materials and methods

a systematic search of articles in the PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted, of which only complete studies, published in English in peer-reviewed journals, were included.

Results

A total of 33 articles, which can be divided into the following 3 subchapters, are present: homocysteine and acute ischemic stroke (AIS); homocysteine and traumatic brain injury (TBI); homocysteine and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)/subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). This confirms that HHcy is an independent risk factor for ABI and a marker of poor prognosis in the case of stroke, ICH, SAH and TBI.

Conclusions

Several studies elucidate that Hcy levels influence the patient's prognosis in ABI and, in some cases, the risk of recurrence. Hcy appears as biochemical marker that can be used by neuro-intensivists as an indicator for risk stratification. Moreover, a nutraceutical approach, including folic acid, the vitamins B6 and B12, reduces the risk of thrombosis, cardiovascular and neurological dysfunction in patients with severe HHcy that were admitted for neurocritical care.

SUBMITTER: Lauretta MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8780007 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNeurocritical care (NCC) aims to improve the outcomes of critically ill patients with brain injury, although the benefits of such subspecialized care are yet to be determined.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of NCC with patient-centered outcomes in adults with acute brain injury who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020177190).Data sourcesThree electronic databases were searched (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception through December 15, 2021, and by citation chaining.Study selectionStudies were included for interventions of neurocritical care units (NCCUs), neurointensivists, or NCC consulting services compared with general care in populations of neurologically ill adults or adults with acute brain injury in ICUs.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was performed in keeping with PRISMA guidelines and risk of bias assessed through the ROBINS-I Cochrane tool by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality at longest follow-up until 6 months. Secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and functional outcomes. Data were measured as risk ratio (RR) if dichotomous or standardized mean difference if continuous. Subgroup analyses were performed for disease and models of NCC delivery.ResultsAfter 5659 nonduplicated published records were screened, 26 nonrandomized observational studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis of mortality outcomes for 55 792 patients demonstrated a 17% relative risk reduction (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; P = .001) in those receiving subspecialized care (n = 27 061) compared with general care (n = 27 694). Subgroup analyses did not identify subgroup differences. Eight studies including 4667 patients demonstrated a 17% relative risk reduction (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97; P = .03) for an unfavorable functional outcome with subspecialized care compared with general care. There were no differences in LOS outcomes. Heterogeneity was substantial in all analyses.Conclusions and relevanceSubspecialized NCC is associated with improved survival and functional outcomes for critically ill adults with brain injury. However, confidence in the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity. Further investigations are necessary to determine the specific aspects of NCC that contribute to these improved outcomes and its cost-effectiveness.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Hyper- and hypoglycemia are strongly associated with adverse outcomes in critical care. Neurologically injured patients are a unique subgroup, where optimal glycemic targets may differ, such that the findings of clinical trials involving heterogeneous critically ill patients may not apply. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive insulin therapy with conventional glycemic control among patients with traumatic brain injury, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, anoxic encephalopathy, central nervous system infections or spinal cord injury. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs, involving 1248 neurocritical care patients, were included. Glycemic targets with intensive insulin ranged from 70-140 mg/dl (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), while conventional protocols aimed to keep glucose levels below 144-300 mg/dl (8.0-16.7 mmol/L). Tight glycemic control had no impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83-1.17; p = 0.88), but did result in fewer unfavorable neurological outcomes (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-1.00; p = 0.04). However, improved outcomes were only observed when glucose levels in the conventional glycemic control group were permitted to be relatively high [threshold for insulin administration > 200 mg/dl (> 11.1 mmol/L)], but not with more intermediate glycemic targets [threshold for insulin administration 140-180 mg/dl (7.8-10.0 mmol/L)]. Hypoglycemia was far more common with intensive therapy (RR 3.10; 95% CI 1.54-6.23; p = 0.002), but there was a large degree of heterogeneity in the results of individual trials (Q = 47.9; p<0.0001; I2 = 75%). Mortality was non-significantly higher with intensive insulin in studies where the proportion of patients developing hypoglycemia was large (> 33%) (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.79-1.75; p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive insulin therapy significantly increases the risk of hypoglycemia and does not influence mortality among neurocritical care patients. Very loose glucose control is associated with worse neurological recovery and should be avoided. These results suggest that intermediate glycemic goals may be most appropriate.