Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multimodal neuromonitoring (MMM) aids early detection of secondary brain injury in neurointensive care and facilitates research in pathophysiologic mechanisms of the injured brain. Invasive ICP monitoring has been the gold standard for decades, however additional methods exist (aMMM). It was hypothesized that local practices regarding aMMM vary considerably and that inter-and intracenter consensus is low. The survey aimed to investigate this hypothesis including the knowledge, attitudes towards, and use of aMMM in the neurointensive care setting in the Nordic countries. METHOD: The survey was distributed amongst 54 neurosurgical trainees at a Nordic neurosurgery training course and supplemented with 16 center-appointed neuromonitoring experts representing 16 of the 19 neurosurgical centers in the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland). RESULTS: The response rate was 100% amongst the training course attendents, as well as the center-appointed experts with a total of 70 respondents. The experts covered 16/19 Nordic centers. In-center disagreement was high concerning the use of aMMM methods. In patients with traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or other acute brain injuries 50% of the appointed experts stated transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) to be used in most cases in their ICU, and an additional 25% for selected cases. Most appointed experts agreed on electroencephalography (EEG) for selected cases 63%, but only 19% for most cases. Routine use of Invasive brain tissue oxygenation (PbtO(2)) was stated by 25-63% and cerebral microdialysis (CMD) by 19-38%. The main perceived concerns with aMMM methods were the usefulness for outcome-changing interventions (43%) and financial issues (19%). Most respondents (67%) believed automated combined analysis of aMMM to be a likely future scenario. CONCLUSION: There was a remarkable variation in the reported use of aMMM among Nordic neurosurgical centers, indicating an extensive lack of consensus on need and utility. Surprisingly routine use of TCD was stated by 75%, presumably for routine monitoring of SAH patients, whereas CMD was mostly considered a research tool. Interestingly, junior staff and appointed experts disagreed on intended local routines, indicating that application of aMMM was more governed organically and by case than on explicit guidelines or that uniform management was not prioritized.