Introduction

Neurocritical care focuses on the care of critically ill patients with an acute neurologic disorder and has grown significantly in the past few years. However, there is a lack of data that describe the scope of practice of neurointensivists and epidemiological data on the types of patients and treatments used in neurocritical care units worldwide. To address these issues, we designed a multicenter, international, point-prevalence, cross-sectional, prospective, observational, non-interventional study in the setting of neurocritical care (PRINCE Study).

Methods

In this manuscript, we analyzed data from the initial phase of the study that included registration, hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) organizations. We present here descriptive statistics to summarize data from the registration case report form. We performed the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn procedure to test for differences in practices among world regions.

Results

We analyzed information submitted by 257 participating sites from 47 countries. The majority of those sites, 119 (46.3%), were in North America, 44 (17.2%) in Europe, 34 (13.3%) in Asia, 9 (3.5%) in the Middle East, 34 (13.3%) in Latin America, and 14 (5.5%) in Oceania. Most ICUs are from academic institutions (73.4%) located in large urban centers (44% > 1 million inhabitants). We found significant differences in hospital and ICU organization, resource allocation, and use of patient management protocols. The highest nursing/patient ratio was in Oceania (100% 1:1). Dedicated Advanced Practiced Providers are mostly present in North America (73.7%) and are uncommon in Oceania (7.7%) and the Middle East (0%). The presence of dedicated respiratory therapist is common in North America (85%), Middle East (85%), and Latin America (84%) but less common in Europe (26%) and Oceania (7.7%). The presence of dedicated pharmacist is highest in North America (89%) and Oceania (85%) and least common in Latin America (38%). The majority of respondents reported having a dedicated neuro-ICU (67% overall; highest in North America: 82%; and lowest in Oceania: 14%).

Conclusion

The PRINCE Study results suggest that there is significant variability in the delivery of neurocritical care. The study also shows it is feasible to undertake international collaborations to gather global data about the practice of neurocritical care.

Severe brain injury can result in disorders of consciousness (DoC), including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, and minimally conscious state. Improved emergency and trauma medicine response, in addition to expanding efforts to prevent premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, has led to an increased number of patients with prolonged DoC. High-quality bedside care of patients with DoC is key to improving long-term functional outcomes. However, there is a paucity of DoC-specific evidence guiding clinicians on efficacious bedside care that can promote medical stability and recovery of consciousness. This Viewpoint describes the state of current DoC bedside care and identifies knowledge and practice gaps related to patient care with DoC collated by the Care of the Patient in Coma scientific workgroup as part of the Neurocritical Care Society's Curing Coma Campaign. The gap analysis identified and organized domains of bedside care that could affect patient outcomes: clinical expertise, assessment and monitoring, timing of intervention, technology, family engagement, cultural considerations, systems of care, and transition to the post-acute continuum. Finally, this Viewpoint recommends future research and education initiatives to address and improve the care of patients with DoC.

Coma and disordered consciousness are common manifestations of acute neurological conditions and are among the most pervasive and challenging aspects of treatment in neurocritical care. Gaps exist in patient assessment, outcome prognostication, and treatment directed specifically at improving consciousness and cognitive recovery. In 2019, the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) launched the Curing Coma Campaign in order to address the "grand challenge" of improving the management of patients with coma and decreased consciousness. One of the first steps was to bring together a Scientific Advisory Council including coma scientists, neurointensivists, neurorehabilitationists, and implementation experts in order to address the current scientific landscape and begin to develop a framework on how to move forward. This manuscript describes the proceedings of the first Curing Coma Campaign Scientific Advisory Council meeting which occurred in conjunction with the NCS Annual Meeting in October 2019 in Vancouver. Specifically, three major pillars were identified which should be considered: endotyping of coma and disorders of consciousness, biomarkers, and proof-of-concept clinical trials. Each is summarized with regard to current approach, benefits to the patient, family, and clinicians, and next steps. Integration of these three pillars will be essential to the success of the Curing Coma Campaign as will expanding the "curing coma community" to ensure broad participation of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates with the goal of identifying and implementing treatments to fundamentally improve the outcome of patients.

Coma and disorders of consciousness (DoC) are highly prevalent and constitute a burden for patients, families, and society worldwide. As part of the Curing Coma Campaign, the Neurocritical Care Society partnered with the National Institutes of Health to organize a symposium bringing together experts from all over the world to develop research targets for DoC. The conference was structured along six domains: (1) defining endotype/phenotypes, (2) biomarkers, (3) proof-of-concept clinical trials, (4) neuroprognostication, (5) long-term recovery, and (6) large datasets. This proceedings paper presents actionable research targets based on the presentations and discussions that occurred at the conference. We summarize the background, main research gaps, overall goals, the panel discussion of the approach, limitations and challenges, and deliverables that were identified.