Podcasts about neurocritical care

We've heard you guys and we are ready to deliver! We are proud to bring you guys our first of several episodes on Neurocritical Care! On this episode - our introductory show - we had the pleasure of hosting Dr. Casey Albin a neurologist & neurointensivist who introduces the topic of neurocritical care with a special focus on basic tenets of stroke management. What type of imaging should you order? What do you do with anticoagulation? Who get's seizure prophylaxis? We cover all this and more with Dr. Albin. Please take a listen and let us know what you think and what else you want to hear from us! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Compassion & Courage, trauma surgeon Tim Pohlman shares his experiences from the hospital walls, the emotional toll of trauma care, and the importance of compassionate presence in medicine. Discover the realities of emergency resuscitation, ethical dilemmas, and how to maintain resilience in high-stakes environments.Resources for you: More communication tips and resources for how to cultivate compassion: https://marcusengel.com/freeresources/Connect with Marcus on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcusengel/Learn more about Marcus' Books: https://marcusengel.com/store/Subscribe to our podcast through Apple: https://bit.ly/MarcusEngelPodcastSubscribe to our podcast through YouTube: https://bit.ly/Youtube-MarcusEngelPodcastAbout Timothy Pohlman, M.D., F.A.C.S.:Timothy Pohlman, M.D., F.A.C.S. is a board-certified surgeon who specializes in Trauma Surgery. He is also board-certified in Surgical Critical Care, and board-certified in Neurocritical Care. Dr. Pohlman is former Professor of Surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSOM). During that time, Dr. Pohlman was a staff surgeon at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, IN., Medical Director of Trauma Intensive Care, Director of Trauma Outreach, and Assistant Medical Director for LifeLine Critical Care Transport for Trauma. Dr. Pohlman graduated from Knox College in 1973 with a bachelor's degree in biology. He received a doctorate in medicine from Rush Medical College in Chicago, IL, being elected into the Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society his senior year. Dr. Pohlman then completed internship and residency in general surgery at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI, serving as Chief Resident his fifth year. Dr. Pohlman obtained advanced training as a Fellow in trauma and burn surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle, WA. During his training, he was supported by a National Institutes of Health Research Service Award. After fellowship training, Dr. Pohlman remained in Seattle, joining the faculty of the University of Washington as assistant professor of surgery. He was subsequently promoted to full professor, with tenure in 2000. While at the University of Washington he was awarded research grants from the National Institute of Health to study human responses to injury. In 2005 he was recruited to IUSOM in Indianapolis, IN to serve as director of Surgical Critical Care. Dr. Pohlman has received numerous awards during his career, including Outstanding Teacher of the Year from the University of Washington, School of Medicine. Dr. Pohlman is a member of over 20 professional organizations, including the Society of University Surgeons, The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, The Neurocritical Care Society, Surgical Infection Society, where he serves on the Informatics Committee, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the Chest Wall Injury Society, where he serves on the Publication Committee. He has authored or coauthored over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, eMedicine articles, and scholarly book reviews. In 2004, he was Visiting Professor in the Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. In Indiana, Dr. Pohlman has served on the Board of Directors of the Indiana Rural Health Association. Currently he serves on the Board of Directors of the Brain Injury Association of Indiana and is a member of the Indiana Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Board. He is also a member of the Medical Executive Committee of the Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, and a member of the Physician Advisory Committee of the Indiana Donor Network. Dr. Pohlman is a former co-chair of the Transfusion Committee for IU Health, which oversees an annual budget of $16.5 million. Dr. Pohlman also served for a number of years as track surgeon for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. He also has been a NASCAR-certified on-track physician (designated in track radio transmissions as the “99”).Date: 7/27/2026 Name of show: Compassion & Courage: Conversations in Healthcare Episode number and title: Episode 184 – The Hidden World of Emergency Rooms with Tim Pohlmankeywordstrauma surgery, emergency medicine, resilience, medical ethics, compassionate care, hospital stories

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Currents series, host Lauren Koffman, DO, MS, speaks with Shraddha Mainali, Sahar Zafar and Brooke Murtaugh about their Currents article, "Neurocritical Care Disorders of Consciousness: Do We Have the Education We Need to Provide Care?" The guests discuss the clinical spectrum of disorders of consciousness and the importance of accurately assessing patients using standardized bedside examinations, neuroimaging and other multimodal tools. They also examine the role of neuroprognostication in guiding conversations with families and ensuring that patients are given appropriate opportunities for recovery. The conversation explores findings from a pilot survey on educational needs related to disorders of consciousness. The panel discusses barriers to care and education, including limited access to centralized resources, time constraints and knowledge gaps in assessment, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. They also highlight the Curing Coma® Campaign's efforts to expand access to evidence-based education through webinars, online resources, World Coma Day and interdisciplinary global collaboration. To read the full article, visit NCS Currents. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this month's EM Quick Hits Podcast, Amna Karabegovic joins us for an EMC² case of pediatric altered LOA and neurocritical care, Anand Swaminathan simplifies the high-risk management of pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular failure, and Brit Long reviews how to recognize and treat Cytokine Release Syndrome. Plus, Andrew Tagg on whether uncomplicated pediatric distal radius fractures need reduction, Jesse McLaren on a systematic approach to ECG interpretation in the bradycardic patient, and Sara Gray and Katie Lin return for Part 2 of “Coaching the EM Mind,” with practical strategies for managing stress and optimizing psychological safety on shift… Please consider a donation to ensure EM Cases continues to be high quality Free Open Access Medical Education here: https://emergencymedicinecases.com/donation/

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Rich Choi, DO, is joined by Eric Rosenthal, MD, to discuss the article "Surgical Intervention for Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus," a systematic review published in Neurocritical Care. Their conversation explores why super-refractory status epilepticus can become increasingly difficult to control, the limited evidence guiding treatment after standard medical therapies have failed and how surgical approaches may fit into care for selected patients. They also discuss the review's findings across 114 reported cases, including high rates of status epilepticus termination after surgical intervention, the distinction between terminating status and achieving long-term freedom from disabling seizures and the potential role of earlier multidisciplinary collaboration with epilepsy and neurosurgery teams. Dr. Rosenthal also emphasizes the importance of matching the intervention to the patient's underlying etiology, seizure localization and goals of care. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Rich Choi, MD, is joined by Alejandro Rabinstein, MD, Shraddha Mainali, MD, and Krishna Rajajee, MD, to discuss the article "Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Critically Ill Adults With Acute Ischemic Stroke," published in Neurocritical Care. Their conversation explores the development of the guideline, including the need for a more structured, evidence-based approach to prognostication in critically ill patients with acute ischemic stroke. The guests discuss why early prognostication is especially high-stakes, how uncertainty and the risk of self-fulfilling prophecy shaped the recommendations and why no single clinical variable or prediction model is reliable enough to guide individual decisions about poor outcomes. They also review the role of early neurological improvement as a moderately reliable predictor of good outcomes, the limitations of existing prediction models in the era of reperfusion therapy, and the importance of multimodal assessment, ongoing family conversations, long-term outcome counseling and shared decision-making rooted in each patient's values. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Perspectives series, host Nicholas Morris, MD, leads a roundtable discussion with neurocritical care fellowship directors Jenna Ford, MD; Rishi Malhotra, MD; Fiona Lynch, MD; and Matt Bevers, MD, on the current state of neurocritical care fellowship training. The panel discusses what distinguishes their programs, how fellowship leadership roles evolve and the ways Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation has shaped training programs. The conversation also examines key challenges in fellowship education, including recruitment, changing learner expectations, wellness, faculty development and collaboration with neurosurgery, APPs and other critical care teams. The group also shares practical advice for fellowship applicants, including what programs look for in strong candidates and the questions applicants should ask when evaluating potential programs. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Currents series, host Lauren Koffman, DO, MS, speaks with Ryan Hakimi, DO, MS, a neurointensivist at Prisma Health and member of the Neurocritical Care Society Board of Directors, about his Currents article, "The Business of Neurocritical Care: Understanding Physician Benefits." Dr. Hakimi explores the often-overlooked financial side of physician compensation, focusing on how retirement benefits can meaningfully shape the overall value of an employment offer. He explains the differences between 401(a), 403(b), 401(k), and 457(b) plans, including employer contributions, tax advantages, vesting periods and expense ratios. He also discusses why a lower base salary may sometimes be offset by a stronger overall benefits package. The conversation highlights why physicians should request and review benefits information during contract negotiations rather than focusing only on salary, title and work expectations. This episode offers practical guidance for physicians seeking to better understand the long-term financial impact of their benefits package and make more informed career decisions. To read the full article that inspired this conversation, visit "The Business of Neurocritical Care: Understanding Physician Benefits" on NCS Currents. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

Westchester Magazine's 2026 Healthcare Heroes Luncheon united an inspiring community to celebrate the extraordinary individuals whose dedication has profoundly shaped regional healthcare. Held on Thursday, May 14th, at Mulino's at Lake Isle Country Club in Eastchester, NY, the event provided guests with a meaningful afternoon dedicated to honoring and connecting with this year's honorees. Recognized for their exceptional compassion and excellence, the remarkable stories of these distinguished professionals will be featured in the upcoming May issue of Westchester Magazine.Dr. Fawaz Al-Mufti, a neurologist, neurocritical care specialist, and neuroendovascular surgeon with the Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, shared his professional journey with host Bob Marrone. He described the high-stakes reality of treating neurological catastrophes—such as brain hemorrhages, ruptured aneurysms, and acute ischemic strokes—both through emergency procedures and intensive care management. Dr. Al-Mufti, who began his medical career in emergency medicine with Doctors Without Borders, also serves as the Associate Dean for Research and Innovation at New York Medical College, where he oversees a broad range of medical research. Expressing deep passion for his field, he emphasized that it is an absolute privilege to care for his patients and credited his success to the collective efforts of his team at the Brain and Spine Institute.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, is joined by Katharina Busl, MD, MS, to discuss the article "Infratentorial Pressure Monitoring in Cerebellar Stroke: Feasibility and Prognostic Utility," recently published in Neurocritical Care. Their conversation examines why pressure in the posterior fossa may differ from supratentorial measurements in patients with cerebellar stroke and why that distinction may matter clinically. They discuss the physiologic basis for compartmentalized intracranial pressure, the challenges of posterior fossa management and the potential implications for monitoring and treatment. Dr. Busl reviews the study's design and key findings, including evidence of a significant pressure gradient between infratentorial and supratentorial compartments and an early signal that higher infratentorial pressures may be associated with worse outcomes. She also discusses important limitations, including the study's small sample size, single-center nature and unanswered questions about surgical variables such as decompression size. The discussion further considers how this proof-of-concept work could inform future studies on monitoring, prognostication and treatment selection in cerebellar stroke. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, is joined by Melissa Dang, PharmD, BCCCP, neurocritical care pharmacist at MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center, to discuss the article "Levetiracetam Dosing Optimization in Neurocritical Care Population: Neuro-ARC Study", recently published in Neurocritical Care. Their conversation explores how augmented renal clearance may reduce levetiracetam exposure in neurocritical care patients and the implications for seizure management in clinical practice. Dr. Dang breaks down the study's pharmacokinetic modeling, highlights key dosing findings and reviews the patient factors most strongly associated with increased drug clearance. She also discusses the study's limitations and emphasizes the need for caution when applying its findings across broader clinical settings. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

What if stroke treatment could start in the ambulance instead of the hospital? In this conversation, Dr. Ritvij Bowry sits down with us to explain how mobile stroke units are helping patients get faster care when every second matters. When a stroke happens, time is critical. The sooner doctors can diagnose the problem and begin treatment, the better the chances of recovery. Dr. Bowry shares how specially equipped ambulances with CT scanners and expert teams are bringing stroke care directly to patients – thus changing the possibilities of emergency medicine… Hit play to find out: Early interventions that can help people after suffering a stroke. The three types of stroke, and why they are treated differently. The two most commonly used medicines for stroke.  What the future of emergency stroke care may look like. Dr. Ritvij Bowry is a board-certified neurologist specializing in Neurocritical Care, stroke treatment, and vascular neurology. He serves as Associate Professor at UTHealth Houston, where his research focuses on acute neurological emergencies and innovative approaches to stroke care. He earned his medical degree from Ross University School of Medicine in Miramar, Florida. After completing his residency at New York University Medical Center and an internship at New York Presbyterian Hospital in Queens, he pursued advanced fellowship training at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston in both Neurocritical Care and Stroke/Vascular Neurology. Dr. Bowry's primary research focus includes the BEST-MSU study (Benefits of Stroke Treatment Using a Mobile Stroke Unit), a multi-center trial evaluating whether delivering stroke treatment directly in the field leads to better outcomes than traditional emergency department care. To learn more about Dr. Bowry, click here now!

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, is joined by Wendy Ziai, MD, professor of neurology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, to discuss the article "Prophylactic Anti-Seizure Medication in Patients with Lobar Intracerebral Hemorrhage", recently published in Neurocritical Care. Their conversation explores the ongoing debate surrounding prophylactic antiseizure medication use in patients with lobar intracerebral hemorrhage. They review current guideline recommendations, highlight limitations in the existing evidence and consider the challenge of balancing seizure prevention with the risk of adverse effects. Dr. Ziai reviews key findings from prior trials as well as the featured study, which demonstrated lower rates of early seizures among patients who received prophylaxis. She also addresses questions related to patient selection, nonconvulsive status epilepticus and long-term cognitive outcomes. The discussion further considers the role of continuous EEG monitoring in the first 48 hours and how future study designs may help clarify which patients, if any, are most likely to benefit. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society. 

In this episode of the Neurocritical Care Society Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, joins Melissa Dang, PharmD, BCCCP, a neurocritical care pharmacist at MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center, to discuss the article Real-World Antiseizure Medication Prophylaxis and Outcomes in Hospitalized Adults with Acute Brain Injuries, recently published in Neurocritical Care. Together, they examine the real-world use of antiseizure medication prophylaxis in patients with acute brain injury, including ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke and traumatic brain injury. Dr. Dang highlights variability in current practice, key factors influencing prophylaxis decisions and the balance between seizure prevention and medication-related risks. She also reviews the study's limitations and underscores the ongoing importance of risk stratification in guiding patient care. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode, editor in chief Joseph E. Safdieh, MD, FAAN, highlights articles about ACGME neurocritical care accreditation, how neurologists in Jamaica are recovering from hurricane damage, and the use of rituximab maintenance dosing in multiple sclerosis.

In this episode of the Neurocritical Care Society Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, speaks with Wendy Ziai, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, about the article The Association Between Hourly Systolic Blood Pressure Variability and Outcomes in Patients With Intracerebral Hemorrhage Is Time-Dependent: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ATACH-2 Trial, recently published in Neurocritical Care. Their discussion explores why blood pressure variability — not just absolute blood pressure targets — may play a critical role in outcomes following acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Dr. Ziai reviews key findings from ATACH-2 and INTERACT trials, the physiologic mechanisms that may link variability to hematoma expansion and neurologic deterioration and why the timing of variability within the first 8 to 12 hours appears especially important. They also examine the unresolved question of causation versus association, implications for antihypertensive management in the ICU and how emerging trials focused on variability may shape future practice. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Currents series, host Lauren Koffman, DO, MS, speaks with Ryan Hakimi, DO, MS, NVS, RPNI, CPB, FNCS, FCCM, FAAN, a neurointensivist at Prisma Health, about his Currents article on billing in neurocritical care. Their conversation explores why billing and documentation education is often absent from medical training, how staffing models and split/shared billing affect physician productivity and key considerations when working with advanced practice providers. Dr. Hakimi also shares practical insights on aligning documentation and billing practices with institutional metrics to support sustainable neurocritical care programs. To read the full article, visit Business of Neurocritical Care: Billing Under the Attending Physician or APP—Which One is Right For You? The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Perspectives series, host Nicholas Morris, MD, speaks with Cherylee Chang, MD, division chief of neurocritical care and professor of neurology, neurosurgery and medicine at Duke University. Dr. Chang reflects on her journey from an early interest in cardiothoracic surgery to neurology, and ultimately, to the "intersectional" work that drew her to neurocritical care. She discusses her early training in the field, efforts to establish certification and fellowship accreditation pathways and the challenges of defining the essential components of what constitutes neurocritical care. Dr. Chang also shares insights from Duke's advanced practice provider model, her work to broaden multidisciplinary inclusion within NCS and her current focus on leadership development, workforce shortages and strategies to better attract the next generation to the field. Dr. Chang recommends the following books for those interested in developing their leadership potential:Difficult Conversations by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila HeenExtreme Ownership by Jocko Williams Leadership and Self-Deception by The Arbinger InstituteThe Fearless Organization by Amy EdmonsonThe Leader's Guide to Mastering Feedback by Joan HibdonThe Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, speaks with Katharina Busl, MD, MS, FNCS, division chief of neurocritical care at the University of Florida and assistant editor for Neurocritical Care journal, about transfusion strategies in patients with acute brain injury. They discuss recent randomized trials and a new systematic review examining restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds across traumatic brain injury, intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Their conversation highlights the physiologic rationale behind transfusion, challenges in interpreting trial and meta-analysis data, and how overlapping hemoglobin ranges complicate bedside decision-making. Dr. Busl also shares how this evolving evidence is influencing clinical practice and the importance of individualized transfusion decisions. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Richard Choi, DO, FNCS, speaks with Katharina Busl, MD, MS, FNCS, division chief of neurocritical care at the University of Florida and assistant editor for Neurocritical Care journal. They explore new research on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) clearance after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. They also discuss the study Prospective Trial of Cerebrospinal Fluid Filtration After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Lumbar Catheter Extension (PILLAR XT) Trial, which evaluates a dual-lumen intrathecal catheter designed to filter CSF and accelerate removal of red blood cells and inflammatory byproducts. Their conversation highlights the rationale behind CSF drainage, how prior work like the Early Drain trial shaped the field, and what this early-phase device trial reveals about feasibility, safety, and reductions in CSF RBC and protein levels. Dr. Bussel and Dr. Choi also touch on implementation challenges and the need for larger trials before this approach can move into broader clinical use. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Masterclass series, hosts Jon Rosenberg, MD, and Stephan Mayer, MD, speak with Jamie Odell, MD, assistant professor of neurocritical care and emergency medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Together, they explore paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity – how it develops after brain injury, why symptoms differ among patients and what current research suggests about its underlying neural networks. Dr. Odell offers practical guidance on recognizing patterns, avoiding anchoring bias and distinguishing PSH from other causes of instability. The conversation also covers common treatment approaches, scoring tools used at the bedside and areas of ongoing study. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Perspectives series, Nicholas Morris, MD, speaks with Werner Hacke, MD, PhD, DSc (hon. mult.), FAHA, FESC, senior professor of neurology at Heidelberg University and a major leader in vascular neurology and neurocritical care. Professor Hacke reflects on his path from psychiatry and psychology to helping establish Germany's early neurological intensive care units and advancing modern acute stroke care. He discusses his contributions to thrombolytics, intra-arterial therapy and the DESTINY trials in decompressive surgery. Professor Hacke also shares perspectives on the evolution of neurocritical care training in Europe, ethical challenges in randomized trials and the importance of collaboration among neurology, neurosurgery and neuroradiology. He touches on individualized decision making, standard-of-care gaps and the ongoing need for progress in hemorrhagic stroke research. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.    

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, host Dr. Nicholas Morris speaks with Dr. Wendy Ziai, professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins and senior editor for Neurocritical Care, and Dr. Richard Choi, neurointensivist at MedStar Franklin Square and social media editor for the journal. This episode also introduces Dr. Richard Choi as the new host of the NCS Podcast Hot Topics series, which will continue to feature high-impact articles from Neurocritical Care. They discuss a new study, Postoperative Monitoring After Elective Intracranial Surgery in a Postanesthesia Care Unit is Safe, Efficient and Cost-Effective, by Arthur Wagner and colleagues in Munich, Germany. The conversation examines the 10-year experience with more than 5,500 patients, complication rates and how PACU-based pathways may ease ICU demand while supporting safe outcomes. Dr. Ziai and Dr. Choi also share perspectives on ICU capacity and the importance of collaboration across departments, showing how this research connects to real-world practice. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Perspectives series, Nicholas Morris, MD, is joined by Chere Chase-Gregory, MD, MHS, senior vice president and chief health equity officer at Novant Health and a practicing neurointensivist. Dr. Chase-Gregory, also an adjunct faculty member at the University of North Carolina and founding member of the Women in Neurocritical Care Committee, shares her path into leadership, the origins of the committee and her ongoing work to advance health equity, mentorship and community partnerships. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

On this EM Quick Hits podcast: Pediatric Torticollis with Dr. Deb Shconfeld, Approach to Stable Wide Complex Tachydysrhythmias with Dr. Anand Swaminathan, Post-intubation Neurocritical Care 5 best practices with Dr. Andrew Petrosoniak, Hyponatremia Correction Rates with Dr. Justin Morgenstern, Paronychia Management with Dr. Andrew Tagg, and Women in EM Leader Series with Judith Tintinalli and Dr. Victoria Myers...Donate to EM Cases to help ensure continued Free Open Access Medical Education in the future here: https://emergencymedicinecases.com/donation/

if you have any feedback, please send us a text! Thank you!Welcome to another episode of Vital Times, the CSA podcast! I'm your host, Dr. Rita Agarwal, and today we're revisiting an important topic: mentorship. We've discussed mentoring before, but its significance in the lives and careers of anesthesiologists makes it worth exploring again.Strong mentorship can have a transformative impact, especially for early career anesthesiologists. Yet, despite its many benefits, building effective mentorship programs continues to be a challenge. In this episode, we'll focus on how mentorship can help young professionals truly thrive.We're joined by two outstanding guests:Dr. Titi Aina-Jones, Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at Texas Children's Hospital. She trained at the University of Connecticut, University of Florida, and Boston Children's Hospital, and is currently pursuing a Master's in Medical Education at the University of Pennsylvania.Dr. Ioana Pasca, Associate Professor at Riverside and Loma Linda University Medical Center in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Neurocritical Care. She also serves as Associate Program Director and Director of Neuroanesthesia at Riverside University Health System, and like Dr. Aina-Jones, is currently enrolled in the Medical Education Master's Program at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rush University Medical Center's neurocritical care team treats patients with complex, emergent neurological conditions, providing them with advanced care that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In this episode of Rounding at Rush, Rajeev Garg, MD, chief of the Division of Neurocritical Care at Rush, talks about how Rush clinicians collaborate closely with stroke specialists and neurosurgeons to treat patients with a range of severe neurological injuries, including aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, large ischemic strokes, traumatic brain injuries, status epilepticus and spinal cord injuries. “Time is brain. The longer an injured brain remains without treatment, the worse the damage and the worse the outcomes. As neurointensivists, our goal is to limit damage to the brain and provide patients the best possible outcomes for recovery.”

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Perspective series, Nicholas Morris, MD, is joined by Immediate Past-President of NCS, Paul Vespa, MD, a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at UCLA. Dr. Vespa shares his path into neurocritical care, as well as his views on the growth of neuro ICUs and advances in continuous EEG monitoring and microdialysis. He discusses the future of AI in EEG, the value of patient stories and the importance of clinician-investigators, mentorship, and teamwork. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.  

In this episode of the NCS Podcast Currents series, host Lauren Koffman, DO, MS, speaks with Clio Rubinos, MD, MS, and Rommel Morel, MD, about the urgent need to improve pre-hospital neurocritical care in low- and middle-income countries. They explore disparities in emergency response, the reality of patients arriving via family or bystanders and community-driven solutions like Colombia's Bootstrap consensus and Uganda's MOTOR trial. The conversation highlights how global collaboration, data-driven strategies and shared passion are essential to improving outcomes and reducing inequities in neurocritical care. Read the accompanying article:Traumatic Brain Injury in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Reflection on the Importance of Timely Interventions in Neurocritical Care Have questions or interested in collaborating?Contact the authors directly: crubinos@unc.edu rommellmorel121@gmail.com The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

Most people believe that strokes only affect adults, but children can experience them too. Although rare, strokes in kids can lead to catastrophic outcomes if not treated properly. Seizure or migraines are often misdiagnosed in this population, making it crucial to have proper protocols in place. While many never think of stroke as something that can impact kids, it's still in the top 10 causes of death in children.  To understand the scope of pediatric stroke and the strides being made to prevent and treat it, we are joined by two experts. Timothy Bernard, MD, is the Director of Education for the section of Child Neurology, and the Director of the Childhood Stroke Program here at Children's Hospital Colorado. He is also a Professor of Pediatrics and Neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Ethan Rosenberg, MD, is the Director of Inpatient Childhood Stroke and Neurocritical Care. He is also an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Neurology.  Some highlights from this episode include:  Understanding diagnosis in this population  What causes stroke in kids  Why there are delays in recognizing stroke symptoms in younger children  The role of the primary care provider with stroke protocol   For more information on Children's Colorado, visit: childrenscolorado.org. 

In this episode of Perspectives, Dr. Nicholas Morris is joined by neurocritical care fellows Dr. Diana Alsbrook, Dr. Sonja Darwish and Dr. Scott Sparks to discuss the future of the field. They share insights on choosing a fellowship, the challenges of training and what it takes to become a well-rounded neurointensivist. From clinical autonomy and mentorship to wellness and preparing for life after fellowship, this conversation provides valuable perspectives for both aspiring fellows and experienced practitioners. The views expressed on the NCS Podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Neurocritical Care Society.

Send us a textIt was a blast talking about all things neuro-ICU pharmacy with Dr. Andy Webb!Check out his very informative website NeuroWiseRx You can also find him on X/Twitter @AJWPharmSome of the resources mentioned in the podcast can be found here:Pharmacotherapy Of Neurocritical Care Series (PONS)Neurocritical Care Society Pharmacists ResourcesEditing by Avani Bhadang Check out our website at www.theneurotransmitters.com to sign up for emails, classes, and quizzes! Would you like to be a guest or suggest a topic? Email us at contact@theneurotransmitters.com Follow our podcast channel on

Join us for an illuminating discussion with Dr. Soojin Park, an Associate Professor of Neurology (in Biomedical informatics) and an Associate Attending Physician at Columbia University. Dr. Park discusses her career trajectory in neurocritical care and biomedical informatics as well as the potential of machine learning techniques to leverage clinical data to improve patient care.

In this episode of Perspectives, Dr. Nicholas Morris talks with Diane McLaughlin, FNCS, about her journey into neurocritical care and the vital role of postgraduate training for APPs. She highlights the importance of ultrasound, sharing how she developed her skills and discusses strategies for staff retention and career growth. She also reflects on advancements in stroke treatment and the benefits of professional society involvement.

In this week's podcast, Neurology Today's editor-in-chief highlights articles on proposed updated criteria for diagnosing MS before symptoms manifest, the use of large language models to address administrative burden with electronic medical records, and the growth of training programs in neonatal neurocritical care.

      Can a career in military medicine offer unexpected opportunities to innovate and shape the future of healthcare? Join us as we explore this intriguing question with Air Force Neurologist Lieutenant Colonel Adam Willis, MD. From his initial fascination with physics to his pivotal role in supporting operational medicine, Adam recounts his unique journey and the moment that brain-computer interface technology ignited his passion for neurology. Discover how neurologists make crucial contributions in managing traumatic brain injuries and seizures in combat zones while addressing the longer-term challenges of headaches, sleep disruptions, and cognitive performance.     In this episode, we unravel the complexities of trauma patient evacuation and the innovative strides being made to enhance survival rates. Adam sheds light on the "golden hour" concept and the development of groundbreaking technologies that ensure rapid access to care. As an insider at DARPA through the Service Chiefs Fellowship Program, Adam shares how his experiences have spurred projects to revolutionize field intensive care medicine. Learn about his work on a game-changing intravascular cannula project, which promises to transform medical care from the injury site through evacuation.     Finally, dive into the world of DARPA with insights into projects like SNAP, which seeks to assess warfighters' readiness using non-invasive biomarkers. Adam's story serves as a reminder of the power of commitment and proactivity in military medicine careers. Individuals can unlock doors to additional training and career advancement by aligning personal goals with the organization's mission. Hear how seizing unexpected opportunities and embracing new challenges can lead to meaningful contributions to the future of military medicine.   Chapters: (00:04) Neurology in Military Medicine (15:39) Advances in Trauma Patient Evacuation (23:16) Revolutionizing Field Intensive Care Medicine (28:01) Innovating Military Technology With DARPA (40:48) Commitment and Innovation in Military Medicine   Chapter Summaries: (00:04) Neurology in Military Medicine    Air Force neurologist discusses role in military medicine, managing TBI and seizures, and innovative intravascular cannula for polytrauma patients. (15:39) Advances in Trauma Patient Evacuation   Maximizing survival from traumatic injuries through rapid patient movement and exploring innovative projects at DARPA. (23:16) Revolutionizing Field Intensive Care Medicine    Collaboration between DARPA and industry to develop a miniaturized, non-anticoagulated ECMO-like system for extending the golden hour in emergency medical situations. (28:01) Innovating Military Technology With DARPA     DARPA program manager crafts questions to harness innovation, funded by DoD, SNAP project for non-invasive warfighter readiness assessment. (40:48) Commitment and Innovation in Military Medicine     Commitment and proactivity in military medicine careers can lead to opportunities for training and advancement.   Take Home Messages: Career Flexibility and Innovation: The journey from a physics background to a career in military neurology demonstrates the importance of being open to unexpected career paths. Embracing new technologies, such as brain-computer interfaces, can lead to groundbreaking roles in fields like military medicine. Neurology's Critical Role in Combat Medicine: Neurologists play a vital role in managing traumatic brain injuries and seizures in combat situations. Their expertise extends beyond acute care, addressing post-TBI issues like headaches and cognitive disruptions, which are essential for maintaining operational readiness. Advancements in Trauma Evacuation: Innovations in trauma care, such as extending the "golden hour," are crucial for improving survival rates from traumatic injuries. Technologies that facilitate rapid and scalable patient movement to definitive care can significantly impact outcomes. Integration of Technology and Medicine: The collaboration between military medicine and advanced research agencies, like DARPA, showcases the potential of integrating artificial intelligence and biotechnology to revolutionize trauma care. Projects like SNAP, which use non-invasive biomarkers, highlight the future of assessing warfighter readiness. Importance of Commitment and Networking: Aligning personal ambitions with organizational missions, seizing opportunities, and proactive networking are key strategies for career advancement in military medicine. Taking initiative and being open to new challenges can lead to significant contributions in the field.   Episode Keywords: Military Medicine, Combat Neurology, Brain-Computer Interface, Traumatic Brain Injury, Battlefield Innovation, DARPA, Adam Willis, Trauma Care, Intravascular Cannula, SNAP Initiative, Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnology, Military Healthcare, Neurocritical Care, Trauma Patient Evacuation, Field Intensive Care, Military Technology, Warfighter Readiness Hashtags: #MilitaryMedicine #CombatNeurology #BattlefieldInnovation #BrainInjuryCare #DARPA #TraumaCareTech #NeuroInnovation #OperationalMedicine #MilitaryHealthcare #WarfighterReadiness   Honoring the Legacy and Preserving the History of Military Medicine The WarDocs Mission is to honor the legacy, preserve the oral history, and showcase career opportunities, unique expeditionary experiences, and achievements of Military Medicine. We foster patriotism and pride in Who we are, What we do, and, most importantly, How we serve Our Patients, the DoD, and Our Nation.   Find out more and join Team WarDocs at https://www.wardocspodcast.com/ Check our list of previous guest episodes at https://www.wardocspodcast.com/our-guests Subscribe and Like our Videos on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@wardocspodcast Listen to the “What We Are For” Episode 47. https://bit.ly/3r87Afm WarDocs- The Military Medicine Podcast is a Non-Profit, Tax-exempt-501(c)(3) Veteran Run Organization run by volunteers. All donations are tax-deductible and go to honoring and preserving the history, experiences, successes, and lessons learned in Military Medicine. A tax receipt will be sent to you. WARDOCS documents the experiences, contributions, and innovations of all military medicine Services, ranks, and Corps who are affectionately called "Docs" as a sign of respect, trust, and confidence on and off the battlefield,demonstrating dedication to the medical care of fellow comrades in arms.     Follow Us on Social Media Twitter: @wardocspodcast Facebook: WarDocs Podcast Instagram: @wardocspodcast LinkedIn: WarDocs-The Military Medicine Podcast YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@wardocspodcast

Renita Miller (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer at Wharton) and Doctor Joshua Levine (Chief of Penn Medicine's Neurocritical Care) join the show to discuss why financial wellness and health must go hand-in-hand to build stronger communities ahead of The Wellness Empowerment Project Summit. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the St Emlyn's podcast, Iain Beardsell is joined by Dan Horner, a consultant in Emergency Medicine and Neurocritical Care, and Tom Roberts, an Emergency Medicine Registrar and clinical lecturer, to discuss their recently published SHED study on subarachnoid haemorrhage in the Emergency Department (ED). This landmark study, published in the Emergency Medicine Journal, explores the safety of CT scans in diagnosing subarachnoid haemorrhage up to 24 hours after headache onset and evaluates the role of further investigations like a lumbar puncture. The study examines acute severe headache presentations in the ED and the diagnostic approach to ruling out subarachnoid haemorrhage, a critical and often feared diagnosis among emergency physicians. Conducted through the Trainee Emergency Research Network (TURN), the study included over 3,600 patients from 88 UK EDs with acute severe headaches reaching maximum intensity within one hour and no focal neurology. Data collection included CT scans, lumbar puncture results, and 28-day follow-up to identify missed cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Key findings from the study revealed a 6.5% prevalence of subarachnoid haemorrhage, with a significant number presenting within six hours of headache onset. The sensitivity of CT scans remained high beyond the traditional six-hour window, suggesting that CT alone could safely rule out subarachnoid haemorrhage up to 18 hours in many cases, potentially reducing the need for lumbar puncture. The risk of missing an aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage after a negative CT was found to be extremely low, around 1 in 1,000. These findings challenge the routine use of lumbar puncture in patients presenting beyond six hours if the CT scan is negative, potentially changing ED practice and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures. The discussion also emphasized the importance of shared decision-making and recognizing that diagnostic testing is about managing probabilities, not certainties. For clinicians, the episode highlights the need to expedite CT scans for patients with acute severe headaches, especially those presenting within 10 minutes of onset, as they are more likely to have significant pathology. Emergency physicians are encouraged to own the decision-making process for ruling out serious causes of headaches and not defer solely to 'specialists'. The SHED study supports extending the diagnostic window for CT scans in ruling out subarachnoid hemorrhage up to 18 hours, reducing the need for lumbar puncture in many cases. This data empowers emergency clinicians to make informed decisions, manage patient expectations, and streamline ED processes.  For more information, listeners are encouraged to read the SHED Study in the Emergency Medicine Journal and explore the related blog post on the St Emlyn's website. Emergency clinicians are also invited to connect with TERN to get involved in future research opportunities.  This episode provides valuable insights for clinicians in managing acute severe headaches, emphasizing a more nuanced approach to subarachnoid hemorrhage diagnosis and the importance of clinical decision-making in the ED.

Curious about the best practices for managing patients with External Ventricular Drains (EVDs) during anesthesia and ICU transport? Join us as we talk to Dr. Abhijit Lele, a leading neuro-anesthesiologist and neuro-intensivist, who shares his expertise and personal journey from pediatrics to neuro-critical care. Discover the collaborative efforts between the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) and the Society for Neuroscience and Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) aimed at improving the safety and outcomes for patients with EVDs.Dr. Lele provides invaluable insights into the complexities of neuro-critical care, shedding light on advanced monitoring techniques and quality improvement initiatives. Learn about his dedicated approach to managing severe neurological conditions in both perioperative and intensive care settings, and how his experiences have shaped his passion for global patient safety. Tune in for practical recommendations and expert knowledge that will enhance your practice and ensure your patients with EVDs receive the highest standard of care.For show notes & transcript, visit our episode page at apsf.org: https://www.apsf.org/podcast/221-enhancing-patient-safety-in-neurocritical-care-best-practices-for-managing-external-ventricular-drains-with-dr-abhijit-lele/© 2024, The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation

Have you ever been confused about the concept of brain death, or struggled to explain brain death to a patient's family or your fellow clinicians? Join the Behind the Knife Surgical Palliative Care team and our special guest, neurologist & neurointensivist Dr. Sarah Wahlster, as we explore the 2023 Pediatric & Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Practice Guideline and what this updated guideline means for our practice in surgical palliative care! Hosts: Dr. Katie O'Connell (@katmo15) is an Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in the division of Trauma, Burn, and Critical Care Surgery. She is a trauma surgeon, palliative care physician, Director of Surgical Palliative Care, and founder of the Advance Care Planning for Surgery Clinic at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, WA. Dr. Virginia Wang is a PGY-3 General Surgery resident at the University of Washington. Guest: Dr. Sarah Wahlster (@SWahlster) is an Associate Professor of Neurology at the University of Washington. She is a neurologist, neurointensivist, and Program Director of the Neurocritical Care Fellowship at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, WA. Learning Objectives: ·      Understand the concept of assent and how it can be helpful in communicating with families of patients who have sustained brain death ·      Explain the main steps required for diagnosis of brain death (prerequisites, clinical exam, apnea testing, ancillary testing) ·      Understand key differences between the 2023 guideline and previous (2010 & 2011) guidelines ·      Be able to name the 3 accepted modalities of ancillary testing for brain death ·      Know basic communication best practices with families of patients who have sustained brain death from the surgical palliative care perspective (consistency of language & messaging; avoidance of phrases such as “life-sustaining treatment”, “comfort-focused measures”) References: 1.     Greer, D. M., Kirschen, M. P., Lewis, A., Gronseth, G. S., Rae-Grant, A., Ashwal, S., Babu, M. A., Bauer, D. F., Billinghurst, L., Corey, A., Partap, S., Rubin, M. A., Shutter, L., Takahashi, C., Tasker, R. C., Varelas, P. N., Wijdicks, E., Bennett, A., Wessels, S. R., & Halperin, J. J. (2023). Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Guideline. Neurology, 101(24), 1112–1132. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207740 2.     Lewis, A., Kirschen, M. P., & Greer, D. (2023). The 2023 AAN/AAP/CNS/SCCM Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Practice Guideline: A Comparison With the 2010 and 2011 Guidelines. Neurology. Clinical practice, 13(6), e200189. https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200189 3.     AAN Interactive Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Evaluation Tool – https://www.aan.com/Guidelines/BDDNC 4.     AAN Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Checklist – https://www.aan.com/Guidelines/Home/GetGuidelineContent/1101 5.     Kirschen, M. P., Lewis, A., & Greer, D. M. (2024). The 2023 American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Society, and Society of Critical Care Medicine Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Determination Consensus Guidelines: What the Critical Care Team Needs to Know. Critical care medicine, 52(3), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006099 6.     Greer, D. M., Shemie, S. D., Lewis, A., Torrance, S., Varelas, P., Goldenberg, F. D., Bernat, J. L., Souter, M., Topcuoglu, M. A., Alexandrov, A. W., Baldisseri, M., Bleck, T., Citerio, G., Dawson, R., Hoppe, A., Jacobe, S., Manara, A., Nakagawa, T. A., Pope, T. M., Silvester, W., … Sung, G. (2020). Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria: The World Brain Death Project. JAMA, 324(11), 1078–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.11586 7.     Lele, A. V., Brooks, A., Miyagawa, L. A., Tesfalem, A., Lundgren, K., Cano, R. E., Ferro-Gonzalez, N., Wongelemegist, Y., Abdullahi, A., Christianson, J. T., Huong, J. S., Nash, P. L., Wang, W. Y., Fong, C. T., Theard, M. A., Wahlster, S., Jannotta, G. E., & Vavilala, M. S. (2023). Caseworker Cultural Mediator Involvement in Neurocritical Care for Patients and Families With Non-English Language Preference: A Quality Improvement Project. Cureus, 15(4), e37687. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.37687 Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://app.behindtheknife.org/listen

Dr. Imad Khan is an assistant professor in the Division of NeuroCritical Care at the University of Rochester. His research focuses on monitoring cerebral perfusion and pathophysiology in patients with […]

Patients with severe acute brain injury often lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions, leaving surrogate decision makers responsible for life-or-death choices. Patient-centered approaches and scientific methodologies can guide clinicians' prognostications. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Susanne Muehlschlegel, MD, MPH, FNCS, FCCM, FAAN, author of the article “Prognostication in Neurocritical Care,” in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Muehlschlegel is a professor (PAR) in the departments of neurology, anesthesiology/critical care medicine and neurosurgery, division of neurosciences critical care at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Prognostication in Neurocritical Care Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @SMuehlschMD Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic- based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the Journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Tesha Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. Today, I'm interviewing doctor Susanne Muehlschlegel about her article on prognostication in neurocritical care, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Well, Susanne, thank you so much for coming on the podcast, and thank you for writing that beautiful article. Dr Muehlschlegel: Thank you so much for having me. Excited to be here. Dr Monteith: Why don't we start with you just introducing yourself? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, sure. My name is Susanne Muehlschlegel. I'm a neurointensivist at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. I have been a neurointensivist for about eighteen years or so. I worked previously at the University of Massachusetts and recently arrived here at Hopkins. Dr Monteith: Cool. So, what were you thinking about - What information did you want to convey - when you set out to write your article? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah. So, the article about neuroprognostication is really near and dear to my heart and my research focus, and I'm very passionate about that part. And as neurologist and neurointensivist, prognostication, you know, might be considered the bread and butter of what we're asked to do by families and other services, but as the article states, is that we don't usually do a great job (or physicians sometimes believe they do). But when you actually do research and look at data, it's probably not as good as we think, and there's a lot of room for improvement. And, so, the reason for this article really was to shine the light at the fact that I think we need to really make neuroprognostication a science, just like we make prediction models a science - and, so, that is the main topic of my research, as well as the article. Dr Monteith: So, we know about your interest in research in this area, but what got you into critical care to begin with? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah. It's, pretty much, a story of always being drawn to what's exciting and what others may want to avoid. So, in medical school, people were afraid of neurology and learning all the anatomy, and I just loved that and loved interacting with these patients. And then, in neurology residency, I was drawn to not just treating the brain and the spinal cord, but also the entire patient (so the lung and the heart and the interaction of all the organs). And then, naturally, I'm a little bit of an impatient person, and so I like the environment of the ICU of rapid change and always having to be on my toes. And so that's what drew me into neurocritical care. It was a very new field when I was training, and so, I was probably, you know, one of the, maybe, first- or second-generation neurointensivists. Dr Monteith: And it sounds like you're maybe okay with uncertainty and a lot of variability? Dr Muehlschlegel: Well, you know, neuroprognostication - I think everyone has to acknowledge that we cannot take away uncertainty, right? So, folks who pretend that they know for sure what's going to happen - I think the only time we can say that is in a patient who's braindead. But everyone else, we really don't know for sure, and all we can do is do the best to our ability to give a rough outlook - but we need to acknowledge uncertainty, that's for sure. Dr Monteith: So, can you just give us a few of the biggest causes of variability when it comes to withdrawing life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe acute brain injuries? Dr Muehlschlegel: So, that's the focus of quite some research. And, of course, there are many epidemiological factors, patient severity of disease, and, you know, how fast someone might arrive to the hospital, ethnic, racial, social demographic factors (and there's research on that), but when you adjust and control for all of those factors, variability remains. And so, what I've observed in my practice and what I also describe in the article is that maybe it's the way physicians describe prognostication or communicate with families, meaning there is potentially the chance for physician bias - that may also drive prognostication. And I can tell you from my own experience, what really drove me into this area is anecdotal experience that probably we've all had of other physicians kind of nihilistically prognosticating, thinking, you know, "This is going to be bad no matter what”, and not even wanting to try to provide aggressive care to patients. So, I think these what we call “self-fulfilling prophecies” we need to be very aware of. So, I think some of the variability may be driven by other factors other than family, patient, or health system factors. Dr Monteith: And you outline that really nicely in the article, so thank you for that. Why don't you just give us an example of a challenging case that maybe you're still thinking about today, that maybe happened years ago, that helps us understand what you go through? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, I'll rephrase the case. I still have, you know, very vivid memories about this, but I tell my residents about this case. When I was a fellow, there was a young patient in his early forties, a father of several children, a young family man who had a big right MCA stroke and really was progressing to the point that it was clear that he needed a hemicraniectomy or he was going to die. Discussed this with my attending, who said I should consult neurosurgery. At the time, the neurosurgical service had a transition to practice service for these emergencies - and so, these were fairly young, chief residents or early-year attendings. And the person came in, went into the patient's room, and I didn't even know about it, and came out and then just said, “Family decided for CMO”. I was very surprised and shocked and was trying to understand how this happened, and this provider, all he said was, “Well, it's all how you put it to the family. I told him that he probably shouldn't be a vegetable. They didn't want him to be a vegetable, and so this was the only option.” And, so, I was very shocked, and the patient did progress to die within a few days. And, so, that was a dire example of how biased prognostication can drive families to maybe an unnecessary outcome. Dr Monteith: And what's CMO? Dr Muehlschlegel: I'm sorry. Comfort measures only - so, essentially, a withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies. Dr Monteith: Yeah. That is a good example of that and how our bias can inform families and maybe not with the exact amount of data to support that, as you outlined so nicely in your article. Dr Muehlschlegel: And I do want to emphasize, I don't want to generalize that all providers are like that, but it is an example that really still sticks in the back of my mind, and I think, you know, we need to shine a light at how we do this and how we do it right or wrong. Dr Monteith: And wouldn't it be nice to just have more objective measures (right?) to guide us? So why don't we talk about existing tools that are used to help guide neuroprognostication? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, so I think, in general, we can break down prognostication to two pieces (and I outline that in the article as well). So, one is, kind of, a derivation of prognostication in the head of a physician or, you know, clinician – and what may go into that is how the patient presented, examination, radiology or other diagnostics, biomarkers, you name it. But, then the second part of it (that also is really important) is how we put it to the family, right? Because we can influence families in a way that we may not even be aware of, and I think we all have unconscious biases, and how we talk to families is really important and may drive what happens to the patient as well. So, I always say there's two pieces to that – so, first of all, how we come up with a prognosis, and then how we disclose that to the family. Dr Monteith: So how can we better handle uncertainty? Dr Muehlschlegel: So, we actually did some research on that and we asked stakeholders, "How do you want physicians to handle uncertainty?”. People are aware that no physician can be certain (again, other than in the case of brain death), and so families are very aware of that. And there's quite some data out there to suggest that if physicians have very absolute statements - you know, want to close the door by saying something very absolute - is that the optimistic bias in families goes up. So, the mistrust in what the physician is saying, coming up with their own (you know, “This is a fighter, and he or she is going to do better than what you're saying”) - and, so, I think, you know, there's no true answer to what's the absolute right way to do it, but some have suggested to maybe fully acknowledge that there is uncertainty. That's actually what families want you to do, based on some qualitative research we've done – is to say, “I do not have a crystal ball. There will be uncertainty”, but then to potentially go into a best/ worst-case scenario. But again, there, all we can do is give a best gross estimate and guess. And so, the work is not really clear at this point. There's research ongoing as to what should be the best way of doing it, but currently, that's what is suggested. Dr Monteith: And in your article, you spoke about some pretty innovative approaches, such as modeling, to help guide shared decision-making. And, so, you know, how reliable is that? Dr Muehlschlegel: That's a good point, right? So, that is up to statisticians or those who are inventing these new models. So, you know, in the old days we used logistic regression, maybe linear regression. Now, there are fancy machine-learning modeling and other Bayesian models that people use, and they certainly have some advantages that I outlined in the article. Bayesian models, for example, may use serial data as it comes in throughout the patient's hospital course - and that's kind of how we do it in real life. But, I think what's really important before we apply models is that we know that there's always outliers, and we don't know if this one patient might be the outlier, and that we need to validate these models, and most importantly, look at calibration. So, I talk in the article about how, you know, all models always report the what's called “area under the receiver-operating curve (the AUC)”, which is discrimination. But, what's actually more important for a model to be applied to a patient at the bedside is calibration, meaning how well does it actually predict a potential outcome. And, you know, there's a lot of research into that, that only maybe half of the papers that report on a new model actually report calibration - so, I think it's really important to pay attention to that (has the model been validated and calibrated before we actually use these models?). I think prediction models have definitely a important role. But, then again, as the article says, we also have to think about how we then apply that to the patient and how we do it in individual patients. Dr Monteith: And then, of course, there's some variability between institutions. Dr Muehlschlegel: That's for sure. You know, there's these systematic approaches or system-based cultures in certain institutions. And then, of course, you know, there's still this model of learning from a role model or a mentor or an attending - meaning you look at how this person does it and then you may adapt it to your own practice. I think we need to critically examine whether we need to continue with that kind of apprenticeship model of learning how to neuroprognosticate, or whether we need to have other educational ways of doing that. So, especially in the field of palliative care, there's a lot of education now around communication - and I think med students get that exposure, and residents may get that exposure, too - but I think we need to practice it and study it systematically, whether having a standardized approach to do this leads to more patient-congruent decisions. Dr Monteith: And, you know, we do have a lot of trainees, residents, and fellows that listen in. So, what are some key messages that you want to make sure gets conveyed? Dr Muehlschlegel: Key messages is that, I think, we need to move away from looking at a patient the first one or two weeks and then concluding that we will know what will happen to this patient in six months or a year or further down the line. I think there's not a lot of longitudinal studies out there now that show that patients actually probably do better than expected if they're allowed to live. And what I mean by that is many studies allow early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies within the first three days or maybe two weeks - but if we actually allow these patients to live, people wake up more than we thought, people may do better than we thought. So, referring to the article, I discuss in detail some twelve-month data from the TRACK-TBI study or very interesting results from South Korea where withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies is forbidden by law. And, so, you can actually do a true natural-history study of what happens with these patients if you allow them to live. And, surprisingly, a lot of people that, you know, within the first two weeks were still comatose actually ended up waking up. And, I think it's really important to look at those studies and to continue to conduct those studies so that we know better what might happen. I always shudder a little bit when I hear, “We need an MRI in the first few days or first week for neuroprognostication”. And then I always question, “Well, what is it really going to tell you about that patient who clearly isn't brain dead and still has certain, you know, exam findings?” and “Shouldn't we just give those patients time?”. I think some of those were a bit too quick to provide poor prognostication if we really don't know. Dr Monteith: And, so, I want to know how did you get into research? You know, it can be competitive to get funding, grant funding - so, tell us about that in terms of, you know, your day-to-day, what's it like? And then, also, what makes you most excited about research happening in this area? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of research happening in that area. I think there's a huge focus on biomarkers and models and all sorts of new diagnostic tools to predict outcome, big push over decades now to do large longitudinal epidemiological studies - and all of those are very, very important, you know. I just mentioned as an example, the TRACK-TBI study is one of many other examples. I'm also excited about doing research in the second part of neuroprognostication that I mentioned - the communication and disclosure part - and the potential of bias as we speak to families. So, I get very excited about that part. It's not easy to get funding, but I think what's important is to focus on the potential impact. And, of course, then you try to convince funders that this is important research that has to be done in addition to funding model development and large epidemiological studies. What my day-to-day looks like? Well, you know, we have several ongoing projects (I won't get into details on that), but to get involved would probably be the best time as a trainee - so, I have medical students working with us, residents and fellows (although their time can be limited). And then to continue to just be curious and ask questions. Dr Monteith: And what do you find most exciting about the work that you do? Just, kind of, overall? Dr Muehlschlegel: I mean, without a doubt, the potential impact, right? So, changing the field a little bit. I'm not claiming that my research is doing that - I hope it might. But, most importantly, it's the potential impact on families and patients. I think our goal is not to have less withdrawal of care (although, sometimes, I just think we need to give people more time), but I think it's important to focus and ask about what patients might want, and then really focus families onto that. I think that can be difficult, because patients don't always tell families what they would want or families want something different than what they know the patient might want - and so, we spend quite some time on that when we speak to families. And then, I also talk about the disability paradox. So, you know, at one point, the family might say, “Well, he would not want to live if he can't walk”, but then, patients, as they learn to live with this new normal, may actually later say, “Well, it's not as bad as I expected it to be, and I'm actually very happy to be alive, even if I'm not able to walk”. And so, that's something that others are doing research on, and that's also important to consider. Dr Monteith: Yeah, that's cool. Thinking about outside of the ICU, right? Dr Muehlschlegel: For sure. Yes. Dr Monteith: Great. Thank you so much for being on our podcast. I know that our listeners are going to really enjoy reading your article and all the thought that you put into that. Dr Muehlschlegel: Thank you so much for having me.   Dr Monteith: Again, today, we've been interviewing Dr Susanne Muehlschlegel whose article on prognostication in neurocritical care appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neurocritical care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is doctor Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this episode. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Dr. Kochanek is internationally respected for his expertise in and research on traumatic brain injury and cardiopulmonary arrest, as well as for his leadership of the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research. As director for 25 years, he has established the Safar Center as one of the leading sites in the world for the investigation of traumatic brain injury and cardiopulmonary arrest. The Safar Center focuses on bench to bedside investigations for TBI and CA related to mechanisms involved in the evolution of secondary brain injury, translational neuroscience, and the development of novel therapies and interventions that can be implemented at any point in the chain of survival—from the field through to rehabilitation.

In this episode, Gordon Smith, MD, FAAN speaks with Casey S.W. Albin, MD, author of the article “Neuromuscular Emergencies,” in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Smith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor and chair of neurology at Kenneth and Dianne Wright Distinguished Chair in Clinical and Translational Research at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Albin is an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery in the departments of neurology and neurosurgery, division of neurocritical care at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuromuscular Emergencies Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @gordonsmithMD Guest: @caseyalbin Transcript  Full transcript available here  Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.   Dr Smith: Hi. This is Dr Gordon Smith. I'm super excited today to be able to have the opportunity to talk to Dr Casey Albin, who will introduce herself in a second. She's well known to Continuum Nation as the Associate Editor for Media Engagement for Continuum. She's also a Neurointensivist at Emory University and wrote a really outstanding article for the neurocritical care issue of Continuum on neuromuscular emergencies. Casey, thanks for joining us. Tell us about yourself. Dr Albin: Sure. Thank you so much, Dr Smith. So, yes, I'm Casey Albin. I am a Neurointensivist. I practice at Emory. We have a really busy and diverse care that we provide at the Emory neuro ICUs. Just at the Clifton campus, there's over forty beds. So, although neuromuscular emergencies certainly do not make up the bread and butter of our practice - I mean, like many intensivists, I spend most of my time primarily caring for patients with cerebrovascular disease - this is a really interesting and just kind of a fun group of patients to take care of because of the ability we have to improve their outcomes and that some of these patients really do get better. And that's a really exciting thing to bear witness to. Dr Smith: I love finding neurointensivists that are interested in neuromuscular medicine because I share your interest in these patients and the fact that there's a lot that we can do for them. You know, how did you get interested in neurocritical care, Casey? Dr Albin: You know, I was always interested in critical care. It was really actually the neurology part that I came late to the party. I was actually, like, gearing up to apply into emergency medicine and was doing my emergency medicine sub-I (like, that was the route I was going to take), and during that sub-I, I just kept encountering patients with neurologic emergencies - so, you know, leptomeningeal carcinomatosis and obstructive hydrocephalus, and then a patient with stroke - and I realized I was just gravitating towards the neuroemergencies more so than just any general emergencies. And I had really enjoyed my neurology rotation. I did not foresee that as the path I was going to take, but after kind of spending some time and taking care of so many neurologic emergencies from the lens of an emergency department, sort of realized, like, "You know, I should go back and do a neurology sub-I.” And so, kind of, actually, late in the game is when I did that rotation and, like, dramatically changed my whole life trajectory. So, I have known since sort of that fourth year of medical school that I really wanted to focus on neurocritical care and neurologic emergencies, and I love the blend of critical care medicine and the procedural aspect of my job while doing it with the most interesting of all the organ systems. So, it's really a great blend of medicine. Dr Smith: Did you ever think about neuromuscular medicine? Dr Albin: Uh, no. Dr Smith: I had to ask. I had to ask. Dr Albin: No, I mean, I do really love neuromuscular emergencies, but I've known for forever that like, really wanted to be in an acute care setting. Dr Smith: You know, I think it's such a great story, Casey, and I know you're an educator, too, right? And, um, we hear this from learners all the time about how they come to neurology relatively late in medical school, and it's been really great to see the trajectory in terms of fellowship determination dates and giving our students opportunities to make their choice, you know, later during their medical school career. And I wonder whether your journey is an example of what we're seeing now (which is more and more students going into neurology because we're giving them the free space to do that), and then also in terms of fellowship decisions as well (which was what I was alluding to earlier)? Dr Albin: Yeah, absolutely. I think having more exposure to neurology and getting a chance to be in that clinical environment - you know, when you are doing the “brain and behaviors” (or whatever your medical school calls the neurology curriculum) - it is so hard and it's so dense, and I think that that's really overwhelming for students. And then you get into the clinical aspect of neurology, and sure, you have to know neurolocalization - and that is fundamentally important to everything we do - but the clinical application is just so beautiful and so much fun and it's so challenging, but in a good way. So, I totally agree. I think that more students need more exposure. Dr Smith: Well, I mean, that's a perfect segue to something I wanted to talk to you about, which is you brought up the beauty of neurology - which is, I think, you know, neurologic formulation, really – and we talk a lot about the elegance of the neurologic examination. But one of the things I really liked about your article was its old-school formulation – you talk about the importance of history, examination, localization, pattern recognition – I wonder if, maybe, you could give us some pearls from that approach and how you think about acute neuromuscular problems and the ICU? Dr Albin: Absolutely. I really do think that this is the cornerstone of making a good diagnosis, right? I will tell you what's really challenging about some of these patients when they are admitted to the ICU is that we are often faced with sort of a confounded exam. The patient may have been rapidly deteriorating, and they may not be able to provide a good history. They may be intubated by the time that we meet them. And so not only are they not able to provide a history themselves, but their exam may be confounded by the fact that they're on a little bit of sedation, or they were aspirating and now they have a little bit of pneumonia. I mean, it can be really challenging to get a good neurologic exam in these patients. But I do think the history and the physical are really where the money is in terms of being able to send the appropriate test. And so, when I think about these patients who get admitted to the neuro ICU, the first thing that we have to have is someone who can provide a really good collateral history, because so much of what we're trying to determine is, "Is this the first presentation, and this is a de novo (new) neuromuscular problem?” or “Had the patient actually had sort of a subacute or chronic (even) decline and they've been undiagnosed for something that was maybe a little bit more indolent, but (you know, they had an abrupt decline because, you know, they got pneumonia, or they have bloodstream infection, or whatever it was allowing them to sort of compensate) they have no longer been able to compensate?”. And so, I really do think that that's key. And when I am hearing the story the first time, that's really one of the focuses of my history – is, "Was this truly a new problem?”. And then, when we think about, you know, "Where do we localize this within the nervous system?”, it's actually quite challenging because, you know, patients with acute spinal cord pathology may also not present with the upper motor neuron findings that are classic for spinal cord pathology. And so I think, again, it's a little bit recognizing that you can be confounded and we have to keep a broad differential, but I am sort of examining for whether or not there's proximal versus distal (like, the gradient of where they're weakest), is there symmetry or asymmetry, and then, are there other, sort of, features that go along with helping us localize to something to the nerves (such as sensory symptoms or autonomic symptoms)? So when I think about, you know, where we're putting this, you can put anything in sort of the anterior horn cells or to the nerves themselves, to the neuromuscular junction, and then to the muscles. And teasing that out, I put in some figures and tables within the article to help kind of help the reader think about what are features of my patient's exam, my patient's history, that might help me to put it into one of those four categories. Dr Smith: Yeah, I was actually going to comment on the figures in your article, Casey. They're really fantastic, and I encourage all of our listeners to check it out. There's, you know, figures showing muscle group involvement and different diseases and different muscle disorders and different forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome - it's a really beautiful way of visualizing things. I wonder if we could go back, though, because I wanted to delve down a little bit in this concept of patients who have chronic neuromuscular diseases presenting into the ICU. I mean, this happens surprisingly frequently with ALS patients or, like, myotonic dystrophy. I've seen this a number of times where folks are, just, they're not diagnosed and they're kind of slowly progressing and they tipped over the edge. Can you tell us more about how you recognize this? You talked a little bit about collateral history - other words of wisdom there? Dr Albin: I would say this is one of the hardest things that we encounter in critical care medicine, because quite frequently - and I see this more with ALS than myotonic dystrophies - but, I would say, like, I don't know, once every six months, we have a patient who's undiagnosed ALS present. And I think it can be extremely difficult to tease this out because there's something that's tipped them over the edge. And as an intensivist, you were always focused on resuscitating the patient and saving them from that life-threatening thing that pushed them over the edge, and then trying to tease out, “Well, were they hypercarbic and did they have respiratory failure because, you know, they've got a little bit of COPD, and is that what's going on here?” or, "Have they been declining and has there been sort of this increase in inability to ventilate actually because of diaphragmatic weakness and because of neuromuscular weakness?” Again, the collateral history is really important. One of the things that I think we are challenged by is how difficult - and I'm sure you can comment on this, as someone who is a neuromuscular guy - is how difficult it is to get a good EMG and nerve conduction study in the ICU in patients who may have been there for a little bit, you know? I think about this, sort of, the electrical interference, the fact that the patient's body temperature has fluctuated, the fact that they are, usually, by this time, like, they're a little volume overloaded – they're puffy. You know, it can be very frustrating. I think, actually, you probably would know more about, like, what it's like to do that exam on our ICU patients. Dr Smith: Sometimes, it's really challenging, I agree. And it's the whole list of things that you raised - and I think it goes back to the first question, really. You put a premium on old-school formulation, pattern recognition, localization, and taking a good history - you know, thinking of that ALS patient, right? I mean, one of the challenges, of course, that you have to deal with in that situation is prognostication and decisions regarding intubation, right? And that's very different from (I'll give another scenario that sometimes we run into, which is the other extreme) a patient with myasthenia gravis who, maybe we expect to be able to get off a ventilator very quickly, but sometimes they're reluctant to be ventilated because of their age or advanced directives and whatnot. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you approach counseling patients regarding prognosis related to their underlying neuromuscular disease and the need for intubation in a period of mechanical ventilation? Dr Albin: Just like you said, it really ranges from what the underlying diagnosis is. So, one of the things that, you know, like you said, myasthenia - these patients, when they're coming in in crisis, we know that there is a good chance that they're going to respond pretty quickly to immunotherapy. I mean, I think we've all seen these patients get plasma exchange, and within a day or two, they are so much stronger (they're lifting their head off the bed, they're clearing their secretions), and every now and then, we're able to temporize those patients with just noninvasive ventilation. You know, when we're having a discussion about that with the patient and with the care team, we really have to look at the amount of secretions and how well they're clearing them, because, again, we certainly don't want them to aspirate - that really sets people back. But, you know, I think, often in those cases, we can kind of use shared decision-making of, you know, “Can we help you get through this with noninvasive?” or, you know, "Looking at you, would you be all right with a short term of intubation?” Knowing that, usually, these patients stabilize not all the time, but quite frequently, with plasma exchange, which we use preferentially. The middle of that is, then, Guillain-Barré - those patients, because of the neuropathy features (the fact that it's going to take their nerves quite some time to heal, you know) - when those patients need to be intubated, a good 70% or more are going to require longer-term ventilation. And, so, again, it's working with a family, it's working with a patient to let them know, "We suspect that you're going to need to be on the ventilator for a long time. And we suspect, actually, you would probably benefit from early tracheostomy”. And there was a really nice guidance that was just presented in the Journal of Neurocritical Care about prognosticating in patients with specifically Guillain-Barré (so that's helpful). And then, we get to the, really, very difficult (I would say the most difficult thing that we deal with in neuromuscular emergencies) - is the patient who we think might have ALS (we are not positive), and then we are faced with this diagnosis of, “Would you like to be intubated, knowing that we very likely will never extubate you?” - and that, I think, is a very difficult conversation, especially given that there is a lot of uncertainty often in the diagnosis. I would say, even more frequently, what happens is they have been intubated at an outside hospital and then transferred to us for failure to wean from the ventilator and, "Can you work it up and say whether or not this is ALS?” – and that, I think, is one of the most difficult conundrums that we face in the ICU. Dr Smith: Yeah. I mean, that's often very, very difficult. And even when the patient wants to be intubated and ultimately receive a tracheostomy, getting them out of the hospital can sometimes be a real challenge. There's so much I want to talk to you about, and, you know, you talked about prognostication - really great discussion about tools to prognosticate in GBS, both strengths of things like EGRIS and the modified EGOS, and so forth – but, I wonder (given that I'm told time is limited for us) if you could talk a little bit about bedside guidance in terms of assessing when patients need to be intubated? You provide really great definitions of different respiratory parameters and the 20/30/40 rule that I'll refer listeners to, but I wonder if you could share, what's your favorite, kind of, bedside test - or couple of bedside tests - that we can use to assess the need for ventilatory support? And this could be particularly helpful in patients who have, let's say, bifacial weakness and can't get a good seal. So, what do you recommend? Is it breath count? Is it cough? Something else? Dr Albin: I think for me, anecdotally (and I really looked for is there any evidence to support this), but for me, anecdotally - and knowing that there is not really good evidence to support this - whether or not the patient could lift their head off the bed, to me, is a very good marker of their diaphragmatic strength. You know, if they've got good neck flexion, I feel a lot better about it. The single breath count test is another thing that I kind of went down a rabbit hole of, like, "Where did this come from?” because I think, you know, it was one of the first things I was taught in residency - like, “Oh, patient with neuromuscular weakness, have them take a deep breath and count for as many breaths as they can.” We have probably all done that bedside test. It's really important to recognize that the initial literature about it was done in myasthenia patients who were in clinic (so, these were not patients who are, like, abruptly going to need intubation), and it does correlate fairly well with their forced vital capacity (meaning how much they're able to exhale on bedside perimetry), but it is not perfect. And I put that nice graph in the article, and you can see, there's a lot of patients who are able to count quite high but actually have a very low FVC, and patients who count only to ten but have a very good FVC. So, I do like the test and I continue to use it, but I, you know, put an asterisk by it. It's also really important - and I would encourage any sort of neurology trainees, or trainees in any specialty - if you're taking care of these patients, watch the respiratory therapist come and do these at the bedside with them. You'll get a much greater sense of (a) what they're doing, but (b) how well the patient tried. And it is really, I mean, we have to interpret this number in the context of, "Did they give a really good effort?” So, I'll often go to the bedside with the RT and be the one coaching the patient - saying, like, you know, “Try again”, “Practice taking this”, “Do the best you can”, “Go, go, go! Go, go, go!” (you know, like, really coaching the patient) - and you would be surprised at how much better that makes their number. And when you're really appropriately counseling them, that we actually get numbers that are much better predicting what they're doing. Then, you also have a gestalt just from being at the bedside of what they looked like during this. Dr Smith: Yeah. I used to work with a neuromuscular nurse who was truly outstanding who was the loudest and most successful vital capacity coach ever. But, you know, she'd be doing it in one room, and you'd be in the next room with a patient. They'd be like, “What are they doing next door?” She was shouting and exhorting the patient to go harder and breathe better. So, it was always, “Wow, that sounds exciting over there”. All right, this is all in a prelude. What I really want to ask you, Casey, is, you know, whenever we do Continuum Audio interviews, we, like, look up people, and it's not hard to look you up because you're everywhere on the Internet. And come to find out, you're a fully credential neuro Twitter star - and that's the term I saw, a star. So, what's it like being a Twitter star? I guess it's an X star. I don't even know what we call it anymore. Dr Albin: I guess it's that. I don't know. I don't know, either. It's so funny, um, that that has become so much of my, like, academic work. I got on Twitter, or X (whatever it is) during the pandemic because, really, my interest is in, you know, innovatives and medical education, and I really had been trained to do simulation. So, I really wanted to develop simulation curriculum. I love doing sims with our medical students to our fellows. So, I was, like, developing this whole curriculum, and then the pandemic came along, and the sim lab at Emory was like, “Mm, yeah, we're not going to let people go in the sim lab. Like, that's not exposure that we want (people in a room together)”. So one of our fellows at the time was doing a lot on Twitter and he was like, "You would love this. You have cases that you want to teach about. You should really get on board”. And I, sort of, reluctantly agreed and have found the NeuroTwitter community to be, like, just a fantastic exchange of, you know, cases, wisdom, new studies - I mean, it's the way that I keep up with what is being published in the many fields that are adjacent to neurocritical care. So, it's very funny that that has ended up being sort of something that is a really big part of my academic time. But now that we're talking about it, I will give a plug for any of the listeners who are not on X. Dr Jones and I post cases, usually twice a week, that come directly from the Continuum articles or from our files (because, you know, sometimes we can spin them a little bit), but it's an amazing, sort of case-based, way to do some, like, microteaching from all of the beautiful Continuum articles, all the cases - and because there are free articles released from the issue, you know we'll link directly to those. So, for any of the listeners who have not, kind of, joined X for all the reasons that many people cite of not joining, I would say that there's so much learning that happens - but Dr Jones and I are people to follow because of our involvement with Continuum and the great cases that we're able to showcase on that platform. Dr Smith: I think that's a great point. And, you know, there are certainly organizations that are questioning their engagement with X, and I'm on a board of an organization that's talked about not actually participating, and I brought up this point that I think the NeuroTwitter (NeuroX) community is really amazing. You'll have to give me some tips, though, I'm at, like, 498 followers or something like that. Do you know how many followers you have? I looked it up yesterday. I've got it for you if you don't know. Dr Albin: I don't know recently. Dr Smith: Yeah, 18,200 as of yesterday. That's amazing! Dr Albin: Yeah, it's worldwide. We're spreading knowledge of Continuum across the globe. It's fantastic. Dr Smith: That's crazy. Yeah, that's great work. It's really great to see the academic, kind of, productivity that comes of that. And I agree with you - Continuum has a really great presence there, and it's a great example of why you're the Associate Editor for Media Engagement. I think we're going to have to, I guess, gamify would be the right thing? Maybe we should, uh, see what the Las Vegas book is on the number of followers between you and Lyell Jones, I think. Dr Albin: Totally. Dr Smith: Yeah. Hey, Casey, this has been awesome. I've been so excited to talk to you - and I could keep talking to you for hours about your NeuroTwitter stardom – but in particular, neuromuscular weakness. I really encourage all of our listeners to check out the article. It's really, really, really, great - really enjoyed it. I learned a lot, and it reminded me a lot of things that I had forgotten. So thank you for the great article, and thanks for a really fun discussion. Dr Albin: Thank you, Dr Smith. It was truly a pleasure.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this article. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Neurologic infections become emergencies when they lead to a rapid decline in a patient's function; however, neurologic infections are often challenging to recognize. In this episode, Aaron Berkowitz, MD, PhD, FAAN, speaks with Alexandra S. Reynolds, MD, author of the article “Neuroinfectious Emergencies,” in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Berkowitz is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco, Department of Neurology and a neurohospitalist, general neurologist, and a clinician educator at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and San Francisco General Hospital in San Francisco, California. Dr. Reynolds is an associate professor in the departments of neurosurgery and neurology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Neuroinfectious Emergencies Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @AaronLBerkowitz Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the Journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.     Dr Berkowitz: This is Dr Aaron Berkowitz, and today, I'm interviewing Dr Alexandra Reynolds about her article on neuroinfectious emergencies, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast, Dr Reynolds. Um, would you mind, please, introducing yourself to our audience?   Dr Reynolds: Sure. Thank you for the invitation. I'm Alex Reynolds, and I am a neurointensivist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.   Dr Berkowitz: Fantastic. Thanks for joining us. Dr Reynolds has written a really comprehensive article with lots of clinical pearls for the evaluation of patients with neurologic infections. So, to start off, when should we consider a neurologic infection as the cause of a patient's neurologic symptoms?   Dr Reynolds: That is a, really, much more complicated question than I think you recognize. I feel like a lot of it has to do with the risk factors of the patient. So, certainly, you know, a lot of times, we think about a patient who comes in with fever and altered mental status, and that's sort of the patient we're thinking about as having an intracranial infection – but, I do think there are a lot of risk factors that, sort of, may push us in that direction even if the patient doesn't have a fever or even if the patient doesn't seem like meningitis (for example). So, you know, a lot of patients nowadays are immunosuppressed, either because of infections or because of the therapies that we're using as immunosuppressants (so, autoimmune diseases, transplants, bone marrow patients). And then, I think, any patient who has had an intracranial procedure or a spinal procedure, we sort of just have to have in the back of our mind that surgical procedures come, by definition, with risk of infection (and so, that's always something to think about). And then, certainly, anything in terms of endemic risk factors (so a patient who has come from a country that has an endemic infection), we need to just be a little bit more broad about what we're thinking about in that patient population.   Dr Berkowitz: That's very helpful. You mentioned something I wanted to pick up on. We always think fever, of course we're going to be thinking about a neurologic infection, but some types of neurologic infections and in some patient populations, it's possible to have an infection of the nervous system with no fever, sometimes even no white count. What other clues should be considered, or when would you think about pursuing infection even in patients who don't have a fever or an elevated white count?   Dr Reynolds: So, certainly, in patients who have imaging that's a little abnormal. I think, oftentimes, the patients that I've seen with sort of indolent infections have a subdural collection that just doesn't look quite right or doesn't make sense with the clinical history (you know, you can have P. acnes infections that go on for months that people really don't necessarily notice) - so any imaging, oftentimes on MRI, you'll see, sort of, diffusion restriction where you don't really expect to see it. So, those sorts of patients might be ones where if the story is just not really fitting, you might want to think about infection. So, I think it's also important to remember that patients who have procedures elsewhere in the body can sort of seed themselves, and either by direct spread or by hematogenous spread, those infections can kind of seed the CNS - so, patients with valve procedures in the heart, patients who have intraabdominal procedures, there really is no reason that those infections can't travel to the CNS as well. And so, I was sort of always taught, you know, if the story doesn't make sense, then you have to consider infection, even if the patient doesn't have a white count or fever. So, I think just having, sort of, that suspicion in the back of your mind that if you can't really make sense of the story, then consider an infection.   Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. So, obviously, fever, white count, those would clue us in that a patient with new neurologic symptoms (signs) may have an infection as a cause. But, as you said, they may not be present in patients who have had any type of neurosurgical procedure (or you've just taught us even non-neurosurgical procedures elsewhere in the body) that could have led to bacteremia. And then, you mentioned earlier, also patients who are immunocompromised may develop a neurologic infection without fever or white count, and our threshold is certainly lower to pursue that possibility in that population as well. Other points on that before we move on?   Dr Reynolds: I had an attending that told me if you're thinking about a lumbar puncture, you better just do it – so, I think those are wise words to sort of live by. If you're thinking about an infection, you better just work it up.   Dr Berkowitz: Yeah. I think that's right. I heard something similar that if you're standing around on rounds debating whether the patient should get a lumbar puncture, probably, if you've talked about it that much, you should probably do it. I think we've heard the same things in different places. Along those lines of who needs a lumbar puncture, many patients with systemic infections can develop a headache, even if it's just from systemic infection (you don't necessarily have meningitis and cephalitis), and many patients, particularly older patients, develop confusion in the course of systemic infections, like pneumonia and urinary tract infections. And as neurologists, we are often consulted on these patients because they are confused, they are febrile, they may have an elevated white count, and people start to wonder, Could this patient have meningitis? Could this patient have encephalitis? In many cases, at least in my experience (I'm curious to hear your experience), it turns out that these patients have a systemic infection and the confusion and/or headache are related to that systemic infection, not a primary neurologic infection - but based on that topic we just discussed about, if you've talked about lumbar puncture enough, probably best to do it. How do you think about these patients who are, for example, admitted to a medical service for fever and confusion, may or may not have had a systemic source identified, but the suspicion is there? How do you think about which of those patients need a lumbar puncture, or what clues you into thinking to have a higher concern for meningitis, encephalitis, abscess, other neurologic infections in this context?   Dr Reynolds: It's such a good question, because I think, especially as we get older, you know, even things like nuchal rigidity might be hard to assess in a patient who's sort of started to fuse their spine - so, I think it can be really challenging. I think, you know, always go back to basics. Is there any new laterality that doesn't really make sense? Is there a sort of disconnect between imaging and how the patient looks? And it can be so confounded, because these are patients who are also on antibiotics (which themselves can be neurotoxic), and so, it can be really hard to sort of parse that out. But, I do think that there are some less invasive things you can try to do first to sort of help risk stratify your patient. So, you know, certainly, getting a CAT scan and just making sure that everything looks as you would expect it to look - there's no, sort of, hydro out of proportion to what you might expect. I've definitely seen patients who have meningitis that we caught because they have just a little bit of pus in the ventricles that was interpreted as intraventricular hemorrhage. And you sort of just have to sit there and think, like, Does that make sense, or is it an infection? EEG can be helpful, too, if it's lateralizing. You know, I think we don't think as much about HSV in the hospital. But, certainly, if you have something lateralizing on your EEG that just doesn't make sense, I think that could sort of push you in that direction as well. But, again, I think in most cases, unless the patient's very thrombocytopenic or coagulopathic, the risk of an LP sort of doesn't really outweigh the benefit of feeling confident that you haven't missed something, because I think, you know, one of the big points of this article is that if you catch these CNS infections early, people can actually do really well, and, really, most of the morbidity and mortality is from missing the infection - so we've been trying to move away from LP-ing everybody on admission, but I do think that you should be tapping some people that are not infected, because then you're probably catching everyone who is.   Dr Berkowitz: It's great to hear your approach, and I think that aligns with my thinking as well. I do want to ask as a follow-up to that question (I've asked this of internists I work with and other neurologists) - I totally agree with everything you said in the sense that, you know, we are consulted by our internists, we presume that they haven't found a reason that the patient is febrile and confused from a systemic standpoint, and that's why we're being consulted. There are, obviously, many patients who are febrile and confused in the hospital where neurology has not been called because there's other obvious reasons, as you have mentioned. However, as you said, if the patient has some immunocompromise, maybe there's some features that are suggestive in the history or nuchal rigidity - as you said, harder in older patients - but there's something there that you sort of think, maybe we should just do a lumbar puncture just to make sure we sort of settle this because we keep thinking about it. The question is, in your experience, when you've gotten a lumbar puncture more as a rule-out, or you think, I think this is the patient's pneumonia and they're confused because they're delirious in the hospital (sort of toxic metabolic encephalopathy), have you ever been surprised? Talking to an internist colleague, I've said, I feel like I haven't actually seen that much bacterial meningitis in the U.S., fortunately, thanks to vaccination. And, usually, the patient is coming in with a pretty profound syndrome of meningitis or encephalitis. But, as far as patients in the hospital with a fever, where you're thinking, "This is kind of a rule-out, so just make sure, even though I don't think I'm going to find meningitis in a patient who is immunocompetent”, have you ever been surprised and found meningitis encephalitis when you didn't expect to find it? Or, what's been your experience when you, as you said, tap these patients because you'd rather get a few normal ones in there to make sure you never missed the abnormal?   Dr Reynolds: I would say the few times that I've been surprised were not with fully immunocompetent patients. You know, someone with a splenectomy who otherwise looks immunocompetent, someone with pretty advanced cancer - those are examples where you wouldn't necessarily have thought about it as being immunocompromised, but they are. Certainly, I think patients with advanced cancer can, really - they're much higher risk than I used to think about. The more I've taken care of them, the more I've realized how sensitive they are to infections and how quickly that can spread, even if they're not actively getting chemotherapy. But, I would say in general, for the truly immunocompetent patient, I would say I haven't really diagnosed anything super exciting.   Dr Berkowitz: Yeah, that's good to hear. I love to, on these Continuum Audio interviews, poll experts in other institutions who trained other places and, you know, learn from different patient populations if your experience resonates with mine and others I've spoken to. Yeah, that sounds similar to my experience as well, yeah, if the patient is immunocompromised - and as you said, we maybe need to broaden that from being truly profoundly immunocompromised by congenital immunodeficiency or HIV or immunomodulatory therapy to have a slightly broader perspective on what could constitute immunocompromise - and, of course, we'd have an extremely low threshold to perform a lumbar puncture in such patients, as you said. You reminded me of a case I was trying to remember the details (which I don't) – it was a patient, actually, with a temporal lobe glioblastoma that had been resected and had some recurrence and was worsening, and it looked like it was tumor recurrence/progression. And I don't - wasn't my patient, I just sort of heard about it - but I don't know which attending or resident or fellow decided that the patient should get a lumbar puncture, and the patient actually developed HSV encephalitis of the temporal lobe, where the glioblastoma was.   Dr Reynolds: Wow.   Dr Berkowitz: Patients with cancer, especially with all the new immunotherapies - and even without them, as you said - this is a state in which people may be vulnerable to infections and ones you might not immediately think of. So, those are some great pearls. Speaking of pearls, you have a really fantastic section in your article on neurologic complications of CNS infections. In other words, you've already diagnosed the meningitis, encephalitis, abscess, or otherwise, and all the other neurologic complications that can occur in the course of this illness. So, it'd be great to talk with you a little bit about that here. So, if a patient is diagnosed with infectious meningitis or encephalitis (we've made that diagnosis by the clinical picture, the lumbar puncture findings, and/or the neuroimaging), we're following them along, we think we have them on appropriate therapy, (antimicrobial therapy), and their neurologic status worsens - what's the differential diagnosis for this worsening? What are some things we can think about? How do we look for them on exam? How do we work them up?   Dr Reynolds: Yeah. It's funny, because, you know, the topic of this is neuroinfectious emergencies, and when I first heard about it, I was like, “Every neuroinfection is an emergency”, and I think part of the reason I felt that way is because as a neuro ICU physician, I see the complications a lot more. You know, I think, from a meningitis and encephalitis standpoint, certainly cerebral edema (whether it be focal or global) is sort of your biggest concern. If you've used your adjunctive steroid therapy at the beginning before you've started antibiotics, you know the idea is that might help – and, certainly, it should help with potential hearing loss as a result of meningitis - but I would say cerebral edema or development of abscesses because of delayed antibiotic initiation is certainly a concern. If a patient's getting lethargic, hydrocephalus can often be a concern - and that may be obstructive hydrocephalus or communicating hydrocephalus – either way, that is a situation where, really, the patient may need, depending on the etiology of the hydrocephalus, either another lumbar puncture (for example, in the case of cryptococcal meningitis) or an external ventricular drain placement (which would bring them to the ICU in cases where there is an obstructive component). So, I do think hydrocephalus is hard to diagnose. My go-to is to sort of check tone in the legs every day, because a lot of times, patients with developing hydro will start to have really high tone in their legs - so, that's sort of my go-to physical exam finding, although, obviously, hydrocephalus can present as just sort of generalized lethargy or even, you know, worsening nausea and vomiting, for example. And then, I think, you know, if someone starts to be localizing on exam, I think that can be concerning not only for abscess, but potentially for ischemic stroke related to a vasculopathy, for example, or hemorrhage in the context of mycotic aneurysm formation, for example - and, so, I do think there is a role, if a patient starts to become lateralizing, for emergent imaging. And generally, we should be able to see most of the stuff on just a plain CAT scan to start. You know, certainly, localizing stuff can also be as a result of seizures, but I think that that's sort of a diagnosis of exclusion, and rapidly imaging a patient with new focal signs is probably the way to go before putting them on EEG.   Dr Berkowitz: Very helpful pearls. So, um, shifting gears a little bit, right before we began our conversation, you were telling me you had done some work in Malawi, and you were reflecting on some of the differences in epidemiology of neuroinfectious disease and resources available to diagnose neuroinfectious disease. So, I'm sure it would be very interesting for our listeners to hear a little bit about the perspective you bring to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with neurologic infections from your experience in Malawi.   Dr Reynolds: Yeah. So, I was lucky enough as a trainee to be able to go to Malawi for a few weeks with my neuroinfectious disease attending, and I think that it's pretty striking (the difference that we see in lower income countries, compared to the U.S.). I think a lot of the disease processes that we sort of take for granted as being easily treatable are not necessarily easily treatable, not only because of lack of access to medications and antibiotics, but also because of sort of a stigma that might be associated with the workup. So, for example, a lot of people were very hesitant to consent to lumbar puncture, because they had seen that their friends and family members who had gotten lumbar punctures ultimately died, and it didn't seem necessarily clear that the reason that they had died was from the primary infection itself. So, I think that really being attuned to disparities not only abroad, but even - you know, working in New York City, I can say that there are definitely disparities in terms of access to care and health equity, and, certainly, the timing of your presentation almost necessarily will change the outcome, and people who are presenting to the hospital later because of infections that were sort of ignored or because of lack of access to healthcare, those patients, really, by definition, end up doing worse - and so, I think that that is really a big thing to think about in our resource-rich areas, think about these infections.   Dr Berkowitz: Well, thank you for sharing those valuable and important perspectives both from Malawi and from your work in New York City.   Dr Reynolds: Thank you.   Dr Berkowitz: Well, thank you so much, Dr Reynolds, for joining me today on Continuum Audio. I've enjoyed our discussion and learned a lot from it. Again, today, we've been interviewing Dr Alexandra Reynolds, whose article on neuroinfectious emergencies appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neurocritical care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to all of our listeners for joining today.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this episode. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Despite validated models, predicting outcomes after traumatic brain injury remains challenging, requiring prognostic humility and a model of shared decision making with surrogate decision makers to establish care goals. In this episode, Lyell Jones, MD, FAAN, speaks with Jamie E. Podell, MD, an author of the article “Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury,” in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Jones is the editor-in-chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology® and is a professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Podell is an assistant professor in the department of neurology, program in trauma at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Traumatic Brain Injury and Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @LyellJ Guest: @jepodell Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier, topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.   Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Jamie Podell, who has recently authored an article on traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury in the latest issue of Continuum on neurocritical care. Dr Podell, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Why don't you introduce yourself to our audience and tell us a little bit about yourself?   Dr Podell: Thanks, Dr Jones. It's great to be here. As you mentioned, I'm Dr Podell. I'm neurocritical care faculty at University of Maryland Shock Trauma. I have a primary interest in traumatic brain injury, both from a research and clinical perspective. I previously have more of a cognitive neuroscience background, but I think it kind of ties into how I think about TBI and outcomes from traumatic brain injury. But what I really like doing is managing acutely ill patients in the ICU, and I think TBI really affords those kinds of interventions, and it's a really rewarding kind of setting to take care of patients. Dr Jones: Yeah, and I really can't wait to talk to you about your article here, which is fantastic. For our listeners who might be new to Continuum, Continuum is a journal dedicated to helping clinicians deliver the best possible neurologic care to their patients, just like Dr Podell was talking about. We do that with high quality and current clinical reviews, and Dr Podell's article - it's a massive topic - traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury. And, you know, as we start off here, Dr Podell, we have the attention now of a massive audience of neurologists. If you had one most important practice change that you would like to see in the care of these patients who have trauma, what would that practice change be? And, I think, maybe, we'll give you two answers, because you cover TBI and you cover spinal cord injury. What would be the most important practice changes you'd like to see?   Dr Podell: So, this isn't that specific, but I think it's really important. I think we need more neurologists, and specifically neurointensivists, managing these patients. I think there's a lot of variability across institutions and how acute severe TBI and spinal cord injury patients are managed. They're often in surgical ICUs, and neurology may be involved in consultation but not in the day-to-day management. But I think what we're seeing is that, you know, there's a lot of multisystem organ dysfunction that happens in these patients, and that has a really strong interplay with neurologic recovery and brain function. And I think, you know, neurointensivists are very well equipped to think about the whole body and how we can kind of manipulate and really aggressively support the body to help heal the brain with special attention to, kind of, the nuance of any individual patient's brain injury. Because TBI is extremely heterogeneous and there's not just a cookie-cutter script for how these patients can be managed, I think, you know, people like neurologists, neurointensivists who have a lot of attention to the nuance - that's really helpful in their management.   Dr Jones: I'm so glad you said that, and not just because I'm a neurologist who's a fan of neurologists, but I do think there are some corners of neuroscience care where neurologists could be a little more present - and trauma definitely seems like one of those, doesn't it?   Dr Podell: Yeah, I think it's tough, because some patients with severe TBI and spinal cord injury can have a lot of multisystemic trauma with, you know, pulmonary contusions, intraabdominal pathology - you need to go to the OR for their other injuries, and so I think it really makes sense to have kind of a collaborative multidisciplinary approach to these patients, but I think neurologists should play a very big role in that approach, however that's done (there are lots of different ways that it's done). But I think having a primary neurology-trained neurointensivist – I know I'm biased, but I think that's where I'd like to see the field moving.   Dr Jones: And, obviously, neurocritical care is an intuitive place for neurological trauma care to start, and even with the sequelae of downstream things, I think neurologists could be more engaged. I wonder if neurology hasn't historically been as involved because it's sort of gravitated to surgical specialists. And I think part of it is, you know, trauma is not usually a diagnostic mystery, right? The neurologist can't pretend to be Sherlock Holmes and try to figure out what's going on when it was pretty clear what the event was, right?   Dr Podell: Right. Yeah, I agree with both of those points. I think, for one, I think postacute care is also a big area where neurologists can be involved more - and patients kind of fall through the cracks. A lot of times, these patients will just follow up with a neurosurgeon and get a repeat head CT and it'll look stable. We started implementing post-TBI neural recovery clinics, which I think other places are starting to do as well, and I think that's kind of a good model for getting neurologists involved - but also, rehab specialists are involved in that. But in terms of, yeah, the diagnostic mysteries and stuff, I think there still can be some, though, with TBI. Yes, obviously, the initial primary insult is obvious, but the secondary pathology that can happen in patients is really nuanced, and it is so variable, and, sometimes, it does take that detective eye to see, “Oh, this patient has one cerebrovascular injury, their risk of stroke to this territory? How are we going to manage it? and thinking about all the kind of sources of secondary decline that are possible. I think it takes that neurology detective sometimes to think about, too.   Dr Jones: Yeah. We never stop pretending to be detectives, right?   Dr Podell: Yeah.   Dr Jones: And on a related note, you know, in your article, you mentioned some of the novel serum and electrophysiologic and imaging biomarkers that are being used to care for these patients. How are you using those in your practice, Dr Podell?   Dr Podell: That's a good question. I think, unfortunately, as with a lot of clinical care, the clinical care does kind of lag behind the research and what we know what we can learn about these patients and their outcomes through retrospective studies. So, to be completely honest, you know, even the serum studies that I mentioned in the article (like GFAP, UCH-L1) - those kind of things, that's not clinically available at our institution. We don't use those. I think a lot of the imaging biomarkers that we see, some of them are coming from more advanced imaging – like, we're talking about FMRI - that requires a lot of post processing (so, again, we're not necessarily using that clinically). But what I would say is that we use imaging to kind of try to predict what complications patients might be at risk of and to try to predict their clinical course. And I think it comes down to trying to break down the heterogeneity of these patients and to try to kind of lump them into different bins of, “What's this patient at risk for?”, “What's their trajectory going to be like?”, “When can I start peeling back how aggressive I am with this patient?”. And, so far, I don't think any of the markers that we have are really clear black-white prescriptive indicators of what to do (I don't think we're quite there yet). So, again, I think we just kind of use all of the data in combination to come up with a management plan for these patients. I think some of the markers, (like some of the electrophysiologic markers), looking at EEG for things like background can provide prognostic information, especially in patients who are comatose that you're wondering about if they're going to wake up (so a lot of this can inform family discussions). But, you know, we used to think that grade three diffuse axonal injury on MRI portended a very poor prognosis (and in the past, some surgeons and ICUs might use that to limit care in patients), but more and more, we're finding that even that is quite nuanced and we're detecting more and more diffuse axonal injury on images in patients who then wake up, or have already woken up and they have the MRI later, and you're like, “Hmm, they had DAI. It's a good thing you didn't get the MRI early and decide not to move forward with aggressive care”. But, I think, in a patient who's comatose and you don't have a good explanation, sometimes, looking for those additional biomarkers to explain what kind of injury pathology you have can just provide more information for families.   Dr Jones: Yeah, and that's a great point that comes up in a lot of our articles and interviews (that the biomarkers really do have to be in a clinical context). So, if I understand you correctly, really, no individual biomarker that has emerged as a precise predictor or prognosticator for outcomes - but you do talk a lot about recent advances in the care of these patients. What would you want to point out to our listeners that's come up recently in the care of trauma?   Dr Podell: Yeah. I think the evidence basis for severe TBI is limited because, again, there's so much heterogeneity and different things going on with different patients, but some of the evidence that has come out more recently involves, kind of, indications for surgical procedures and the timing of those procedures. Some of that is still kind of expert consensus-based. But, for example, doing a secondary decompression for elevated ICP with the DECRA and RESCUEicp trials. We do have better high-quality evidence that doing a secondary decompression for more refractory, elevated ICP can improve both mortality and functional outcomes in patients, so that has kind of become more standard of care. Additionally, I think timing for spinal cord injury, neurosurgical procedures - that's been a topic that's been studied in more evidence-based to perform earlier decompressive surgeries. And then, I think, you know, more and more is emerging just about the pathophysiology of secondary injury - and some of those things haven't necessarily translated to what to do about it - but we've learned about things like cortical spreading depolarizations being associated with worse outcomes in traumatic brain injury, and we've also identified that ketamine or memantine can both actually stop those cortical spreading depolarizations. But the overall impact of managing them is still unknown, and the way that we detect those, it requires an invasive electrocorticography monitor which not all centers have. So, I think, one of the important things as we move forward in TBI care is, as we get this better mechanistic understanding of some of the pathophysiology that's happening in these TBI patients, figuring out a way to be able to translate that across all clinical settings where you can actually do the monitoring invasively - that's also an issue we see. Even intracranial pressure monitoring is pretty standard of care, but not all centers do that, and we have to be able to apply practice recommendations to centers where there isn't necessarily access to the same things that we have at large academic trauma centers.    Dr Jones: Got it. Obviously, there's a lot of research in this area, a lot of clinical research, and I'm glad you mentioned the secondary injury - things that are happening at the tissue level are important for us to think about. As the care of patients with trauma has evolved (and I'm thinking now of patients with spinal cord injury), we still see patients who receive high-dose corticosteroids in the setting of acute spinal cord injury - and obviously, that's something that's evolved. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about what they should be doing when they're seeing a patient with a traumatic spinal cord injury?   Dr Podell: Yes. So, the steroids story for spinal cord injury is kind of interesting. There were a series of trials called the NASCIS trials that looked at corticosteroids and spinal cord injury, and they were initially interpreted that high-dose steroids had a beneficial effect on spinal cord injury recovery - but then, kind of in relooking at the data and recognizing that these were kind of unplanned subgroup analyses that showed benefit, and then looking at kind of pooled reanalysis and meta-analysis of all the data out there, it was determined that there actually was no clear benefit from steroids and that there was a clear incidence of more complications from high-dose steroids. So, in general, corticosteroids are not recommended for spinal cord injury. Same for traumatic brain injury, too (even though some people will still give steroids for that) - there was a CRASH study that looked at corticosteroids in TBI and found worse outcomes in TBI (so there actually is high-level evidence not to use steroids in that case). That's not to say that there's not an inflammatory process that's going on that could be causing secondary injury - I think that's still, really, you know, an area of active research is to try to figure out what is the balance between potential adaptive mechanisms of inflammation that are happening versus more maladaptive sources of secondary injury from inflammation and how and when do we target that inflammation to improve outcomes. So, there's still, I think, more to come on that.   Dr Jones: And, you know, we are guided by evidence, obviously, but also, we learn from our experience as clinicians. You work in the neurocritical care unit. You take care of all patients with critical neurologic problems. When it comes to TBI and spinal cord injury, what kind of management tips or tricks have you learned that would be good for our audience to hear?   Dr Podell: I think the way that I would sum it up is that you should be very aggressive - supportive care early on, and then thoughtfully pull back and let the brain and spinal cord heal itself. And, you know, the patients come in with TBI (for example) very sympathetically aroused. They do need sedation, they need blood pressure support, they need mechanical ventilation - they need help kind of maintaining homeostasis. And other autonomic effects with spinal cord injury happen, too - you get neurogenic shock (you need very aggressive management of blood pressure, volume assessments), you know, in both cases in trauma patients, managing things like coagulopathy - but, you know, over time, usually, these things start to, kind of, heal themselves to some degree. And then, kind of thoughtfully figuring out when you can peel back on the different measures that you're doing to support them through their acute injuries. Different protocols have been developed, and the Brain Trauma Foundation has developed evidence-based guidelines that have improved (just having a protocol, we know, improves) trauma outcomes overall at centers - but I think those protocols are just guidelines, and you really have to pay attention to the individual patient in front of you. For TBI, for example, our guideline will say to aggressively manage fever within the first seven days with surface cooling. But in a patient that, for example, developed kind of a stroke or progressive cerebral edema even on day five (or something) you're looking at them, and on day seven, they're still having a lot of swelling in their brain, I'm not going to peel off the temperature management. So, there is nuance - you can't just kind follow a rule book in these patients.   Dr Jones: Got it. And I think that point about aggressive support early is a good takeaway for any listeners who might be engaged in the care of these patients. You know, I imagine working in that setting and taking care of patients who are in the midst of a devastating injury - I imagine that can be pretty challenging, but I imagine it could be pretty rewarding as well. What drew you to this particular area of interest, Dr Podell, and what do you find most exciting about it?   Dr Podell: A lot kind of converged for me in this area. I went into neurology thinking I would be a cognitive neurologist. I had more of a neuroimaging background and an interest in neural network pathology that certainly happens to patients with TBI (and patients with TBI often will have neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive problems after injury). But then, during residency, I found myself. My personality clicked in the ICU, and I just liked managing sick patients - I liked the pace of it, I also really liked it. It's kind of a team sport in the ICU with multiple people involved - the bedside nurses, respiratory therapists, neurosurgeons, trauma surgeons - all working together to figure out the best management plan for these patients, so you don't feel alone in managing them. And not all outcomes are good, obviously, but you can see people get better even during their course of their ICU stay - and that's really, really rewarding. And I think what we're seeing even in the literature following patients out longer and longer, the recovery trajectory for TBI is different than what we see in other neurologic injuries (like stroke, where the longer you go - up to ten, twenty years, even - people are still improving). I think the idea that you can keep hope alive for a lot of these patients and try to combat any kind of nihilism - obviously, there's a time and place for that after a really devastating injury, but I've seen a lot of patients who are really, really sick, needing therapeutic hypothermia, barbiturate coma, decompression, still then recovering and being able to come back into the ICU and talk to us.   Dr Jones: We might have some junior listeners who are thinking about behavioral neurology or neurocritical care, and it's probably - I don't know if it's reassuring, or maybe concerning, to them to know that they might swing completely to the other end of the spectrum of acuity, which is kind of what you did.   Dr Podell: Yeah, and what I'm trying to do now is, I'm very interested in autonomic dysfunction that happens in these patients. It's related a lot to multisystem organ dysfunction and, I think, may contribute to secondary injury, too, with changes in cerebral perfusion, especially in patients who have storming or even just the early autonomic dysregulation that happens early on. I think it's induced by neural network dysfunction from the brain injury, kind of similar to the way that there are other phenotypes that would be induced by neural network dysfunction (like coma).  So, we're trying to look at MRIs of acute TBI patients and trying to identify what structural imaging pathology then gives rise to these different kinds of clinical phenotypes - trying to bring it back to this neuroscience focus.   Dr Jones: Well, that gives us and our listeners something to look forward to, Dr Podell. And again, I just want to thank you for joining us, and thank you for such a great discussion on the care of patients with TBI, and spinal cord disorders and thank you for such a wonderful article.   Dr Podell: Thank you very much. It is my pleasure.   Dr Jones: Again, we've been speaking with Dr Jamie Podell, author of an article on traumatic brain injury and traumatic spinal cord injury in Continuum's latest issue on neurocritical care. Please check it out. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this article. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.  

The critical care management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is similar to that of other acute brain injuries, with the addition of detecting and treating delayed cerebral ischemia. Recent trials are influencing practice and providing guidance for standardizing management. In this episode, Kait Nevel, MD speaks with Soojin Park, MD, FAHA, FNCS, author of the article “Emergent Management of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage,” in the Continuum June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Nevel is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and a neurologist and neuro-oncologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Park is an associate professor of neurology (in biomedical informatics) at Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University in New York, New York and medical director of critical care data science and artificial intelligence at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York. Additional Resources Read the article: Emergent Management of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @IUneurodocmom Guest: @soojin_soojin Full episode transcript   Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening.   Dr Nevel: This is Dr Kait Nevel. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Soojin Park about her article on emergent management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Welcome to the podcast. It's so great to be talking to you today.   Dr Park: Thank you so much, Kait. Nice to be here.   Dr Nevel: Before we get started, could you introduce yourself for the audience?   Dr Park: Sure. So, I am an Associate Professor of Neurology - also in Biomedical Informatics - at Columbia University here in New York City. I trained in vascular neurology and neurocritical care.   Dr Nevel: Great. And so, I always like to ask at the beginning of these interviews, you know, if we could take away one thing from your article — and this is specifically (I'll direct this) towards the neurologists out there that are covering inpatient consults and ER consults — and so, for our clinical neurologists listening out there, what is the most important thing that you think that they should take away from your article?   Dr Park: So, I guess the most important thing for the general neurologists out there is that it may have been a while since they were aware of some updates that have occurred. There are some recent trials that are influencing practice and will potentially influence practice in the next few years that readers should really know about, and it provides a little bit stronger guidance to drive more standardized management. There have been two recent guidelines published this year. But there remain several gray areas for management where you need to be a bit more nuanced, and so I'm hoping the article gives the readers a framework to deliver more expert care.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, and I really, of course, always urge the listeners to go back and read the article and reference the article, because I do think that you do that really nicely and are clear when there are things where there's more higher-level, evidence-based reasons for things and where there's, kind of, just more expertise and guidelines on certain things. So, could you tell the listeners a little bit more about yourself, what interests you about subarachnoid hemorrhage specifically, and how you approach that interest and clinical background in writing this article?   Dr Park: So, I mentioned that I trained in both vascular neurology and neurocritical care back when many people used to do that. As a result, I've trained or practiced in four different academic medical centers who have specialized neurointensive care units. And the patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage tend to have a substantial ICU length of stay, and the neurointensive care that we provide can have a very large impact on patient outcome. And what I saw, though (practicing across four different centers), was that the management of patients with subarach can be quite variable across institutions and across patients within institutions, and it's reflective of a couple of things. One, there's, like, complexity in detecting ischemia, even when your patient is a captive audience in their ICU room. Second, there's many clinical mimics that occur (the patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, they have a risk for), such as hydrocephalus, seizure, and things like delirium. And then, finally, there's limitations in the technology that we even have available in terms of monitoring these patients. But, for me, it was this complexity and the variability of management that kind of posed an opportunity, and it really sparked my curiosity early on and has sustained me. So, I'm particularly interested in the role that, kind of, the complex analysis of existing monitoring technologies can play to improve outcome for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and that's where the marriage of both being a neurointensive care physician and a biomedical informatics person comes in.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. That's really interesting, and I could see that, because I always felt, even during my training, that some of the management and, you know, what diagnostics were even ordered to follow patients throughout the ICU was expertise based and seemed to vary without a lot of really solid, again, high-level studies, guiding what was done. So how do you marry the bioinformatics with your interest in SAH?   Dr Park: Right. So, I have two grants on - basically, I guess you would say AI, but really data science - on how we can manage patients with bleeds, specifically ICH and subarachnoid hemorrhage and hydrocephalus. So, we use data that comes from the monitors and we process that in a multimodal fashion and apply signal processing and machine learning and we build predictive analytic tools. So, I'm very interested in this pipeline of developing clinical decision support (information that we don't really have), and we're trying to glean from all the data and turn it into information that clinicians might use. The problem in subarachnoid hemorrhage patients is that a lot of what we're looking for is subclinical - so, it's not quite obvious, either because you can't possibly be in the room to be constantly monitoring for it (and, currently, the best monitor is the human, is examination), but, specifically in patients who have disordered consciousness, even the examination can be somewhat limited, and that's where we rely upon some of our neuromonitors. So, my interest has come in taking those multimodal monitors - but even nonneurologic monitors (stuff about your physiology, like your heart rate and blood pressure, et cetera) - and able to find signals that might tell us that a patient is getting into a dangerous zone. So, that's what my research portfolio has been 100% about - it's about subarachnoid hemorrhage patients and trying to optimize management, both for prevention and intervening in a timely fashion.   Dr Nevel: Wow. That's really interesting and would be so wonderful, it sounds like, for this patient population, if, you know, something was able to be identified that you could easily monitor to kind of predict or catch things early. So, kind of segueing from that, what do you think are the most — and you outline these nicely in your article, and I'm going to reference the listeners to, I believe it's the first table (table 5-1) - but what are, just like in general, the most important initial steps a clinician should take when managing somebody with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?   Dr Park: So, I think it's sort of along the timeline. So, at the time of presentation of a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage, the focus you should have should be really on differentiating the etiology of the subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the same time, if the patient has any coagulopathies, you should manage that coagulopathy reversal, blood pressure management, and then detection and management and treatment of hydrocephalus. That's first and foremost. But then there is a longer timeline of neurocritical care management, and that's really centered on prevention, detection, and treatment of delayed cerebral ischemia, and that can occur anytime from onset of subarachnoid hemorrhage to two to three weeks out. And then that period of neurocritical care is made challenging because you have early brain injury (which is the period of seventy-two hours after onset), cerebral edema, and then, like we talked about, disordered consciousness. This kind of knowing how to augment your management strategies with monitoring or imaging is really key.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you, you know, spend some time in your article really going through delayed cerebral ischemia really nicely. And I would love to hear your take on what is the most challenging aspects of delayed cerebral ischemia in both, you know, diagnosis and management - and you alluded to it a little bit earlier, I think, with some of your research, but I would love to hear you talk about that.   Dr Park: Yeah. And actually, this is probably one of - if there was a controversial area in this topic, it would be about this - because there does not seem to be one best way to operationalize how you either survey for, or monitor for, delayed cerebral ischemia. There has been, historically, a merging of these definitions of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia, which are not the same thing.  And so, if you were to draw a Venn diagram, not all patients who have cerebral vasospasm end up having symptomatic or delayed cerebral ischemia, and not all patients who have delayed cerebral ischemia have any discernable vasospasm - and, so, to use the terms interchangeably leads to a little bit of confusion. I mentioned the clinical mimics - you know, the causes of which are myriad (could be delirium, or hydrocephalus, or early brain injury) - and so that also poses another challenge. And, so, what I always say is that delayed cerebral ischemia, sometimes - when you're thinking about it in the context of subarachnoid hemorrhage - is sometimes a retrospective diagnosis. And it really kind of came from a really earnest attempt to standardize what the community is talking about, so that we can better understand how to define (if you understand how to define it better, then you can tailor treatments, study treatments, you're talking about the same disease) - but we're still not there, and I think that's where a lot of the controversy or confusion comes from. My personal approach is really to focus on the symptomatology, so, if a patient has vasospasm - whether that is, you know, screened for with a transcranial Doppler (if your institution does use transcranial Dopplers, it might be a nice screening tool) - but the fact of the matter is that not all patients can get a transcranial Doppler every single day. You know, most of the institutions that I have worked in offer that technology Monday through Friday and not on holidays, not on weekends, and so you can't fully rely upon something like that. The advantage of it is that it has pretty high sensitivity but it does have a lower specificity (so it overcalls vasospasms), so to treat just based on a TCD would probably be erroneous. Not all people agree, but I think that's the majority of the sentiment - is that you should then be triggered to go look for confirmation with some neuroimaging and really potentially wait for symptoms so that it might be a trigger to optimize the patient in terms of volume and blood pressure, but not necessarily to treat. So, yeah, operationalizing that workflow of how do you trigger, you know, confirmatory neuroimaging, what type of neuroimaging you should then choose? This is where the variability exists. But, in general, I focus on symptomatology. The extra challenge comes in the patients who have disordered consciousness. And so, at an institution like mine, we do rely upon invasive neuromonitoring, and that's now called for in the guidelines as well.   Dr Nevel: And I imagine these are high-intensity situations where also I would suspect decisions, you know, need to be made quickly on some of these things that you're talking about, too.   Dr Park: That's right.   Dr Nevel: What do you think is a misconception - or maybe (I hate to call it a mistake, but for lack of a better term) like an easy mistake that one can make - when treating patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?   Dr Park: Hmm, an easy mistake. I guess, you know, time is brain, so it's an opportunity to miss ischemia - or actually attribute everything to ischemia and ignore the possibility for things like seizure (so nonconvulsive seizures), a resurgence of more of a delayed hydrocephalus - and so, I think it's important as you're managing a patient not to get kind of pigeonholed into looking for one particular thing (only looking for delayed cerebral ischemia), but being really vigilant that there could be lots of different reasons for a neurological change of a patient. And so, timely monitoring - kind of figuring out the etiology of a change in neurological status - is really important. And then, also, on the flip side of that, is we're really good at being aggressive in both inducing hypertension or managing a patient (trying to prevent ischemia), we're not that great about starting to pull back - and so I think being vigilant about opportunities to reassess your patient's risk for ongoing ischemia and deciding when that period of risk is over and starting to peel back on therapies, because these patients are also at risk for the down sides of inducing hypertension, which is PRES - and we have seen that in patients, and, you know, the phenotype of that will look very much like ischemia.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, it's complicated because you're taking care of patients with often impaired consciousness who have a lot of symptoms that could represent many different diagnoses that you would treat very differently, so I could see that that might be easy to do to kind of fall into the mindset of thinking that it's definitely one thing without fully evaluating for everything. So, caring for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage obviously can be really, you know, challenging from the medical perspective, but also from the perspective of, you know, communication with families, and families asking questions about prognosis and things like that (and you mentioned this in your article about prognostication a little bit) - and can you talk a little bit about our ability to prognosticate long-term outcomes for patients who are in that acute phase (maybe even early first, you know, couple of days or a week) with a subarachnoid hemorrhage?   Dr Park: I think one of the most rewarding aspects of caring for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage is that these patients can look, really, very sick in the beginning, and they're quite complex to manage, but you can see some very impressive recovery. And from a neurointensivist perspective, seeing that recovery in kind of a rapid timeline is rare - and we get to see that in subarach patients. We see patients who just have refractory recurrent vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia getting all of the tools thrown at them and you're really kind of, you know, concerned that there seems to be no end - but there is this peak of that injury, and then after that window of secondary brain injury risk kind of resolves, the patient can very much recover (so seeing patients who look the sickest be able to leave and go home). I think there is a hidden cost to subarachnoid hemorrhage where, maybe on our gross measures of outcome, patients look great, but there are this hidden cost of social psychological outcome that is unmeasured the way that we are currently measuring it. And I think our field is getting better at adopting some of the ability to measure those kind of hidden costs, and we're able to see that, even a year out, patients are really not back to where they were before (even though on the scales we currently have, they do look great, right, in terms of motor function, and things like that) - so, I think as clinicians, we have to be sensitive to that. So, when we talk to families, we have to remain hopeful that they are going to have a remarkable potential recovery but prepare families that they really should be on the lookout for any opportunity to rehabilitate in all aspects of function.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. And you mentioned in your article that as we're moving into the future  - and even currently - that there is some focus on gathering more patient-reported outcomes for people who are, you know, out of the ICU back in their normal lives after subarachnoid hemorrhage (which speaks to this that you're talking about, that even if their motor function is normal, they may not be back to their normal lives). So, what is something you think that's really important that we've learned in the past ten years - I'll give it ten years, you can go back further, make that time frame shorter if you want, but about the past ten years - about subarachnoid hemorrhage's impact on patient care, and then what do you think we're going to learn in the next ten years that will impact the way we care for these patients?   Dr Park: So, you know, subarach - in terms of the literature that is forming, that has formed - like I said, the guidelines had not been updated for over a decade, and we're fortunate to have not just one, but two sets of guidelines from two professional societies that were published right next to each other this past year in 2023 - but the field is fast moving, so even after the publication of those guidelines, there was one of the first randomized controlled trials in the field to be published maybe a month or two after that (that was the early lumbar drain trial). So, the key areas that I think where the literature has really helped strengthen our practice in terms of bringing standardization is in the antifibrinolytics. And so, in that space, recently, there was a very nicely performed randomized controlled trial for early administration of antifibrinolytics. It's a practice that, even when I was training, was sort of based on old literature back when we used to treat subarachnoid patients very differently - so we were really kind of extrapolating from that literature into our practice, and we were all sort of just giving it uniformly to patients early on with the good intention to try to prevent rebleeding, (which we understood, prior to aneurysm securement, was a high source of morbidity/mortality). So, in trying to reduce that risk of rebleeding (which happens very early) as much as we could, we were giving it. But the length of treatment (you know, who should we give that medication to) was really kind of uncertain - and this recent randomized controlled trial really gave a definitive answer to this, which is that it probably makes no difference. It should be seen with a caveat, though, that the trial (like any trial) was a very specific population. So, it could probably be said that for patients who are secured very early, there's no role for antifibrinolytic therapy, but, potentially, for patients who may be in a lower-middle-income environment or lower-income environment or for whatever reason can't reach aneurysm securement within that seventy two-hour period - you could consider, you know, greater than twenty-four hours you should consider the use of antifibrinolytics - but largely has brought an end to uniform administration of antifibrinolytics. This is where that expert nuanced care comes to, right?   Dr Nevel: Mm-hmm.   Dr Park: Another area is, really, kind of something as basic as blood pressure management. I think we were taught very early on that we should be very rigorous, bring that blood pressure down - and so, I think, across all types of stroke now, we're realizing there is a little bit of nuance, right? You have to think about your patient, about prior existing renal failure, about prior existing chronic hypertension that's poorly controlled - and in subarachnoid hemorrhage, the additional impact of that early brain injury. If you have cerebral edema, you should be considering, do we really want to control our blood pressure that low? Because we might be inducing secondary brain injury from our presumed protective intervention. So, these types of things are being revisited - so, the language around that in the new guidelines is a little bit softer, and it does sort of refer more to, “let's consider the whole patient”.   Dr Nevel: Yeah, rather than making a blanket statement that doesn't apply to maybe everybody.   Dr Park: Yeah. And you also asked about future.   Dr Nevel: Yeah. Where do you think things are heading in the future? What's exciting in research, and if you had a crystal ball, what do you think we're going to figure out in the next ten years that's going to impact care?   Dr Park: Well, fortunately, for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and for people like me who are treating patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, there's a lot going on. So, I mentioned lumbar drainage because there was a very nice trial that was published - I think we'll see in the next few years how much of that diffusion of innovation travels across the country in the world about the usage of this. There are some who point to prior studies that may have conflicting results and so want to wait and see it be validated. Others are pretty convinced, you know, by the quality of the study that was done and are trying to incorporate it into their protocols now. I think we're going to see more usage and more study of things like intravenous milrinone, early stellate ganglion blockade, intraventricular nicardipine, and even maybe optimized goals for cerebral perfusion or blood pressure - and this is for looking at a myriad of outcomes, including the prevention and treatment of vasospasm and ischemia, improving outcomes, and preventing infarction. There's also a lot to come about early brain injury (and I kind of talked about that). It's like a seventy-two-hour period window after subarachnoid hemorrhage, and it comprises processes like microcirculatory dysfunction, blood-brain barrier breakdown, and things like oxidative cascades, et cetera. While currently, there doesn't exist any practice besides, like, the nuance and expert determination of blood pressure goals prior to aneurysm securement, I think this will be an area that hopefully will become a target for intervention, because it has an independent and influential impact on poor outcomes for subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. So, watch the space.   Dr Nevel: Yes, absolutely. Looking forward to seeing what comes. Well, thank you so much for talking to me, Dr Park, and joining me on Continuum Audio.   Dr Park: It was my pleasure.   Dr Nevel: Again, today, I've been interviewing Dr Soojin Park, whose article on emergent management of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage appears in the most recent issue of Continuum in neurocritical care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice - and right now, during our spring special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024 or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In this week's episode, Dr. Nicholas Morris talks to Dr. Michael Rodricks (Immediate Past Chair of the NCS FNCS Credentialing Committee) and Dr. Jason Makii (NCS FNCS Credentialing Committee Chair-Elect) about the Fellowship in Neurocritical Care Society Designation.  Listeners can learn what the FNCS designation means, how to apply, and how to maximize their chances of success.

Dr. Marik is an accomplished physician with special knowledge in a diverse set of medical fields, with specific training in Internal Medicine, Critical Care, Neurocritical Care, Pharmacology, Anesthesia, Nutrition, and Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. He is a former tenured Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia.In January 2022 Dr. Marik retired from EVMS to focus on continuing his leadership of the FLCCC and has already co-authored over 10 papers on therapeutic aspects of treating COVID-19. In March 2022 Dr. Marik received a commendation by unanimous vote by the Virginia House of Delegates for “his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients and his philanthropic efforts to share his effective treatment protocols with physicians around the world.”In this conversation at the FLCCC conference, Dr. Marik and I discuss fraud and corruption in medical institutions, as well as the distrust in Big Pharma after the pandemic. More from Dr. Paul Marik:Dr. Marik on XBooks by Dr. MarikMore about the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC):Substack The FLCCC Alliance CommunityWatch panels and discussions where this interview was filmed here.Peter Boghossian's talk at the FLCCC ConferenceA recent huge win for the FLCCC regarding Ivermectin Watch this episode on YouTube.

Trial of the Week: Levetiracetam Rapid IV Push Special Guest: Olivia Morgan, PharmD, BCCCP, BCGP   I'm joined by Olivia Morgan to discuss her first author 2020 Neurocritical Care article entitled “Safety and Tolerability of Rapid Administration Undiluted Levetiracetam.” We review previous administration techniques and discussing how this study came to be before highlighting all the findings from this Trial of the Week. Then we discuss how the protocol has changed since this study, administering other ASM via rapid IV push, and much, much more.   Reference list:  https://pharmacytodose.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/keppra-rapid-ivp-references.pdf   PharmacyToDose.Com @PharmacyToDose PharmacyToDose@Gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices