A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial

Randall M. Chesnut, Thomas P. Bleck, Giuseppe Citerio, Jan Classen, D. James Cooper, William M. Coplin, Michael N. Diringer, Per Olof Grände, J. Claude Hemphill, Peter J. Hutchinson, Peter Le Roux, Stephan A. Mayer, David K. Menon, John A. Myburgh, David O. Okonkwo, Claudia S. Robertson, Juan Sahuquillo, Nino Stocchetti, Gene Sung, Nancy TemkinPaul M. Vespa, Walter Videtta, Howard Yonas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Widely-varying published and presented analyses of the Benchmark Evidence From South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the group's general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83% to 100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that the BEST TRIP trial: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1722-1724
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Neurotrauma
Volume32
Issue number22
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 15 2015

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Intracranial Pressure
Therapeutics
Intracranial Hypertension
Politics
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • BEST TRIP trial
  • Consensus Development Conference
  • intracranial pressure
  • neurocritical care
  • traumatic brain injury

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Chesnut, R. M., Bleck, T. P., Citerio, G., Classen, J., Cooper, D. J., Coplin, W. M., ... Yonas, H. (2015). A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial. Journal of Neurotrauma, 32(22), 1722-1724. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2015.3976

A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials : Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial. / Chesnut, Randall M.; Bleck, Thomas P.; Citerio, Giuseppe; Classen, Jan; Cooper, D. James; Coplin, William M.; Diringer, Michael N.; Grände, Per Olof; Hemphill, J. Claude; Hutchinson, Peter J.; Le Roux, Peter; Mayer, Stephan A.; Menon, David K.; Myburgh, John A.; Okonkwo, David O.; Robertson, Claudia S.; Sahuquillo, Juan; Stocchetti, Nino; Sung, Gene; Temkin, Nancy; Vespa, Paul M.; Videtta, Walter; Yonas, Howard.

In: Journal of Neurotrauma, Vol. 32, No. 22, 15.11.2015, p. 1722-1724.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chesnut, RM, Bleck, TP, Citerio, G, Classen, J, Cooper, DJ, Coplin, WM, Diringer, MN, Grände, PO, Hemphill, JC, Hutchinson, PJ, Le Roux, P, Mayer, SA, Menon, DK, Myburgh, JA, Okonkwo, DO, Robertson, CS, Sahuquillo, J, Stocchetti, N, Sung, G, Temkin, N, Vespa, PM, Videtta, W & Yonas, H 2015, 'A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial', Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 32, no. 22, pp. 1722-1724. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2015.3976
Chesnut, Randall M. ; Bleck, Thomas P. ; Citerio, Giuseppe ; Classen, Jan ; Cooper, D. James ; Coplin, William M. ; Diringer, Michael N. ; Grände, Per Olof ; Hemphill, J. Claude ; Hutchinson, Peter J. ; Le Roux, Peter ; Mayer, Stephan A. ; Menon, David K. ; Myburgh, John A. ; Okonkwo, David O. ; Robertson, Claudia S. ; Sahuquillo, Juan ; Stocchetti, Nino ; Sung, Gene ; Temkin, Nancy ; Vespa, Paul M. ; Videtta, Walter ; Yonas, Howard. / A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials : Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial. In: Journal of Neurotrauma. 2015 ; Vol. 32, No. 22. pp. 1722-1724.
@article{ee253cfe58c6457088084786a9920cac,
title = "A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial",
abstract = "Widely-varying published and presented analyses of the Benchmark Evidence From South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the group's general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70{\%} by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83{\%} to 100{\%}. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that the BEST TRIP trial: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation.",
keywords = "BEST TRIP trial, Consensus Development Conference, intracranial pressure, neurocritical care, traumatic brain injury",
author = "Chesnut, {Randall M.} and Bleck, {Thomas P.} and Giuseppe Citerio and Jan Classen and Cooper, {D. James} and Coplin, {William M.} and Diringer, {Michael N.} and Gr{\"a}nde, {Per Olof} and Hemphill, {J. Claude} and Hutchinson, {Peter J.} and {Le Roux}, Peter and Mayer, {Stephan A.} and Menon, {David K.} and Myburgh, {John A.} and Okonkwo, {David O.} and Robertson, {Claudia S.} and Juan Sahuquillo and Nino Stocchetti and Gene Sung and Nancy Temkin and Vespa, {Paul M.} and Walter Videtta and Howard Yonas",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1089/neu.2015.3976",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1722--1724",
journal = "Journal of Neurotrauma",
issn = "0897-7151",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "22",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Consensus-Based Interpretation of the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials

T2 - Treatment of Intracranial Pressure Trial

AU - Chesnut, Randall M.

AU - Bleck, Thomas P.

AU - Citerio, Giuseppe

AU - Classen, Jan

AU - Cooper, D. James

AU - Coplin, William M.

AU - Diringer, Michael N.

AU - Grände, Per Olof

AU - Hemphill, J. Claude

AU - Hutchinson, Peter J.

AU - Le Roux, Peter

AU - Mayer, Stephan A.

AU - Menon, David K.

AU - Myburgh, John A.

AU - Okonkwo, David O.

AU - Robertson, Claudia S.

AU - Sahuquillo, Juan

AU - Stocchetti, Nino

AU - Sung, Gene

AU - Temkin, Nancy

AU - Vespa, Paul M.

AU - Videtta, Walter

AU - Yonas, Howard

PY - 2015/11/15

Y1 - 2015/11/15

N2 - Widely-varying published and presented analyses of the Benchmark Evidence From South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the group's general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83% to 100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that the BEST TRIP trial: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation.

AB - Widely-varying published and presented analyses of the Benchmark Evidence From South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the group's general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83% to 100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that the BEST TRIP trial: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation.

KW - BEST TRIP trial

KW - Consensus Development Conference

KW - intracranial pressure

KW - neurocritical care

KW - traumatic brain injury

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947079301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947079301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/neu.2015.3976

DO - 10.1089/neu.2015.3976

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84947079301

VL - 32

SP - 1722

EP - 1724

JO - Journal of Neurotrauma

JF - Journal of Neurotrauma

SN - 0897-7151

IS - 22

ER -