Research and Technology in Neurocritical Care
- 319 Downloads
The daily practice of neurointensivists focuses on the recognition of subtle changes in the neurological examination, interactions between the brain and systemic derangements, and brain physiology. Common alterations such as fever, hyperglycemia, and hypotension have different consequences in patients with brain insults compared with patients of general medical illness. Various technologies have become available or are currently being developed. The session on “research and technology” of the first neurocritical care research conference held in Houston in September of 2009 was devoted to the discussion of the current status, and the research role of state-of-the art technologies in neurocritical patients including multi-modality neuromonitoring, biomarkers, neuroimaging, and “omics” research (proteomix, genomics, and metabolomics). We have summarized the topics discussed in this session. We have provided a brief overview of the current status of these technologies, and put forward recommendations for future research applications in the field of neurocritical care.
KeywordsNeurocritical care Neuromonitoring Genomics Neuroimaging Biomarkers
The First Neurocritical Care Research Conference was funded by award R13NS065494 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P.I.: JI Suarez), the Integra Foundation, and the Neuroscience Center of the St Luke’s Episcopal Hospital in Houston, TX, and endorsed by the Neurocritical Care Society.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health.
- 14.Figaji AA, Fieggen AG, Argent AC, Leroux PD, Peter JC. Does adherence to treatment targets in children with severe traumatic brain injury avoid brain hypoxia? A brain tissue oxygenation study. Neurosurgery 2008;63:83–91; discussion 91–92.Google Scholar
- 19.Temple RJ. A regulatory authority’s opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT, editors. Clinical measurement in drug evaluation. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1995. p. 3–22.Google Scholar