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: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.

Project description:Cerebral multimodality monitoring (MMM) is, even with a general lack of Class I evidence, increasingly recognized as a tool to support clinical decision-making in the neuroscience intensive care unit (NICU). However, literature and guidelines have focused on unimodal signals in a specific form of acute brain injury. Integrating unimodal signals in multiple signal monitoring is the next step for clinical studies and patient care. As such, we aimed to investigate the recent application of MMM in studies of adult patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), acute ischemic stroke (AIS), and hypoxic ischemic brain injury following cardiac arrest (HIBI). We identified continuous or daily updated monitoring modalities and summarized the monitoring setting, study setting, and clinical characteristics. In addition, we discussed clinical outcome in intervention studies. We identified 112 MMM studies, including 11 modalities, over the last 7 years (2015-2022). Fifty-eight studies (52%) applied only two modalities. Most frequently combined were ICP monitoring (92 studies (82%)) together with PbtO2 (63 studies (56%). Most studies included patients with TBI (59 studies) or SAH (53 studies). The enrollment period of 34 studies (30%) took more than 5 years, whereas the median sample size was only 36 patients (q1- q3, 20-74). We classified studies as either observational (68 studies) or interventional (44 studies). The interventions were subclassified as systemic (24 studies), cerebral (10 studies), and interventions guided by MMM (11 studies). We identified 20 different systemic or cerebral interventions. Nine (9/11, 82%) of the MMM-guided studies included clinical outcome as an endpoint. In 78% (7/9) of these MMM-guided intervention studies, a significant improvement in outcome was demonstrated in favor of interventions guided by MMM. Clinical outcome may be improved with interventions guided by MMM. This strengthens the belief in this application, but further interdisciplinary collaborations are needed to overcome the heterogeneity, as illustrated in the present review. Future research should focus on increasing sample sizes, improved data collection, refining definitions of secondary injuries, and standardized interventions. Only then can we proceed with complex outcome studies with MMM-guided treatment.