Clinical Research Directory

Non-Invasive Monitoring Methods in Patients With Acute Brain Injury

Life-threatening mass effect (LTME) arises when brain swelling displaces or compresses crucial midline structures subsequent to acute brain injuries (ABIs) like traumatic brain injury (TBI), ischemic stroke (IS), and intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), which can manifest rapidly within hours or more gradually over days. Despite advancements in surgical management, significant gaps in understanding persist regarding optimal monitoring and therapeutic approaches. The current standard for identifying LTME involves neurologic decline in conjunction with radiographic evidence or increased intracranial pressure (ICP) indicating space-occupying mass effect. However, in critically ill patients, reliance on subjective physical exam findings, such as decreased arousal, often leads to delayed recognition, occurring only after catastrophic shifts have already occurred. The goal of this study is to determine the association of non-invasive biomarkers with neurologic deterioration, and to determine whether non-invasive biomarker inclusion improves detection of outcome and decline. The investigators propose to use various non-invasive methods to monitor ICP as adjuncts in detecting deteriorating mass effect. These methods include quantitative pupillometry, radiographic data, laboratory data, and other bedside diagnostic tests available including electroencephalography (EEG), skull vibrations detected via brain4care device, optic nerve sheath diameter assessment (ONSD), and ultrasound-guided eyeball compression. Some of these methods will be measured \*only\* for the purposes of the research study (such as skull vibrations via brain4care). Other measurements, such as quantitative pupillometry, will represent additional measurements beyond those already being collected for clinical care. This research study is necessary to understand the association of these non-invasive biomarkers with neurological decline and outcomes while considering potential confounding factors.

Cognitive Functions in Severe Acquired Brain Injury After Cranioplasty

Cranioplasty is the main reconstructive neurosurgical procedure, performed in approximately 80% of patients who have previously undergone demolitive surgeries in an emergency setting, particularly in the case of decompressive craniectomy . It mainly aims to ensure the protection of brain tissue and improve the aesthetic appearance. Statistical correlation analyses between timing of cranioplasty and neurological recovery are probably in favor of early cranioplasty. Cranioplasty improves motor and cognitive rehabilitation outcomes. However, it carries an increased risk of postoperative complications, such as seizures and infections. Other studies show that cranioplasty performed 3 to 6 months after craniectomy can significantly improve motor and cognitive recovery. The timing of the intervention plays a fundamental role in enucleating cognitive improvement. In fact, greater cognitive changes have been observed in patients who underwent cranioplasty within 6 months of the injury. Therefore, cranioplasty must be considered a key factor for neuropsychological recovery and should be performed early in order to make the most of the rehabilitation window. In the literature, there are studies that have evaluated how cranioplasty can facilitate cognitive recovery, regardless of timing. In particular, a significant cognitive recovery was observed in the period immediately following cranioplasty, while the improvement stabilizes after a certain period of time and recovery begins to slow down. In patients with severe acquired brain injury (GCA), cranioplasty seems to significantly improve neuropsychological and motor function, even after a long time from the procedure. The aim of the study is therefore to evaluate whether in patients with severe acquired brain injury who underwent cranioplasty in the neurorehabilitation setting there is an improvement in cognitive, motor functions and psychological aspects.