Secondary Logo

Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Third Edition

Update of the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines, Executive Summary

Kochanek, Patrick M., MD, MCCM1; Tasker, Robert C., MA, MD, FRCP2; Carney, Nancy, PhD3; Totten, Annette M., PhD4; Adelson, P. David, MD, FACS, FAAP, FAANS5; Selden, Nathan R., MD, PhD, FACS, FAAP6; Davis-O’Reilly, Cynthia, BS7; Hart, Erica L., MST8; Bell, Michael J., MD9; Bratton, Susan L., MD, MPH, FAAP10; Grant, Gerald A., MD11; Kissoon, Niranjan, MD, FRCP(C), FAAP, MCCM, FACPE12; Reuter-Rice, Karin E., PhD, CPNP-AC, FCCM, FAAN13; Vavilala, Monica S., MD14; Wainwright, Mark S., MD, PhD15

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: March 2019 - Volume 20 - Issue 3 - p 280–289
doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001736
Special Articles

Objectives: The purpose of this work is to identify and synthesize research produced since the second edition of these Guidelines was published and incorporate new results into revised evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury in pediatric patients.

Methods and Main Results: This document provides an overview of our process, lists the new research added, and includes the revised recommendations. Recommendations are only provided when there is supporting evidence. This update includes 22 recommendations, nine are new or revised from previous editions. New recommendations on neuroimaging, hyperosmolar therapy, analgesics and sedatives, seizure prophylaxis, temperature control/hypothermia, and nutrition are provided. None are level I, three are level II, and 19 are level III. The Clinical Investigators responsible for these Guidelines also created a companion algorithm that supplements the recommendations with expert consensus where evidence is not available and organizes possible interventions into first and second tier utilization. The purpose of publishing the algorithm as a separate document is to provide guidance for clinicians while maintaining a clear distinction between what is evidence based and what is consensus based. This approach allows, and is intended to encourage, continued creativity in treatment and research where evidence is lacking. Additionally, it allows for the use of the evidence-based recommendations as the foundation for other pathways, protocols, or algorithms specific to different organizations or environments. The complete guideline document and supplemental appendices are available electronically from this journal. These documents contain summaries and evaluations of all the studies considered, including those from prior editions, and more detailed information on our methodology.

Conclusions: New level II and level III evidence-based recommendations and an algorithm provide additional guidance for the development of local protocols to treat pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Our intention is to identify and institute a sustainable process to update these Guidelines as new evidence becomes available.

1Ake N. Grenvik Professor of Critical Care Medicine, Vice Chair, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Professor of Anesthesiology, Pediatrics, Bioengineering, and Clinical and Translational Science, Director, Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

2Department of Neurology and Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

3Professor, Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.

4Associate Professor, Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland OR.

5Diane and Bruce Halle Endowed Chair in Pediatric Neurosciences, Chief, Pediatric Neurosurgery, Director, BARROW Neurological Institute at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Phoenix, AZ.

6Chair, Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.

7Research Associate, Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland OR.

8Research Assistant, Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland OR.

9Professor and Chief, Critical Care Medicine, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC.

10Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

11Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

12Department of Pediatrics, British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital, Clinical Investigator, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Canada.

13School of Nursing/School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC.

14Professor & Vice Chair Strategic Affairs, Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Professor, Pediatrics, Director, Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (HIPRC), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

15Herman and Faye Sarkowsky Endowed Chair, Head, Division of Pediatric Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division, Stanford University, or the Brain Trauma Foundation. The information contained in the Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury reflects the current state of knowledge at the time of publication. The Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurologic Surgeons, Congress of Neurologic Surgeons, and other collaborating organizations are not engaged in rendering professional medical services and assume no responsibility for patient outcomes resulting from application of these general recommendations in specific patient circumstances. Accordingly, the Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurologic Surgeons, and Congress of Neurologic Surgeons consider adherence to these clinical practice guidelines will not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. The information contained in these guidelines reflects published scientific evidence at the time of completion of the guidelines and cannot anticipate subsequent findings and/or additional evidence and therefore should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same result. Medical advice and decisions are appropriately made only by a competent and licensed physician who must make decisions in light of all the facts and circumstances in each individual and particular case and on the basis of availability of resources and expertise. Guidelines are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations and are not a substitute for physician-patient consultation. Accordingly, the Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurologic Surgeons, and Congress of Neurologic Surgeons consider adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances.

Supported, in part, by the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division, through a contract awarded to Stanford University (W911 QY-14-C-0086) and a subcontract awarded to Oregon Health & Science University. Prior editions were supported, in part, by funding from multiple sources through the Brain Trauma Foundation.

Dr. Kochanek received funding from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (Editor-in-Chief of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine), from serving as an expert witness on cases in pediatric critical care. Drs. Carney and Totten’s, Ms. Davis-O’Reilly’s, and Ms. Hart’s institutions received funding from Stanford University. Dr. Selden disclosed that he has stock options (current $0 value) in Cerebrotech for scientific advisory board service (this device is not clinically available and is not referenced in the work). Dr. Reuter-Rice received funding from textbook royalties and curriculum content, and she received support for article research from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding 2013–2016. Dr. Wainwright received funding from Sage Therapeutics. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

This executive summary has been co-published and appears in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine and Neurosurgery.

For information regarding this article, E-mail:

The Third Edition of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (1) updates the Second Edition published in 2012 (2). This new publication is part of an effort to update a suite of three Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines, including similar acute care guidelines for adults (published in January 2017) (3) and guidelines for prehospital management of all ages (forthcoming). It represents a substantial effort by a multidisciplinary group of individuals assembled to reflect the team approach to the treatment of these complex, critically ill patients that is essential to optimizing critical care and improving outcomes.

A total of 48 new studies were included in this Third Edition. Although some progress has been made and should be celebrated, overall the level of evidence informing these Guidelines remains low. High-quality randomized studies that could support level I recommendations remain absent; the available evidence produced only three level II recommendations, whereas most recommendations are level III, supported by lower quality evidence.

In addition to the Guidelines, we have authored a companion article that presents a “Critical Pathway” algorithm of care for both first tier and second tier (refractory intracranial hypertension) approaches (4). The algorithm reflects both the evidence-based recommendations from these Guidelines as well as consensus-based expert opinion, vetted by the full committee, where evidence was not available. The algorithm also addresses a number of issues that are important but were not previously covered in the Guidelines, given the lack of research. Specifically, the algorithm addresses issues such as a step-wise approach to elevated intracranial pressure (ICP), differences in tempo of therapy in different types of patients, scenarios with a rapidly escalating need for ICP-directed therapy in the setting of impending herniation, integration of multiple monitoring targets, and other complex issues such as minimal versus optimal therapeutic targets and approaches to weaning therapies.

It is important to acknowledge that these Guidelines were written as the Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial (ADAPT) (5–7), one of the most important in the field of pediatric TBI, was coming to a close. The ADAPT completed enrollment of 1,000 cases of severe pediatric TBI and is one example of the recent, heightened general interest in TBI as a disease. This new interest in the importance of TBI has emerged in part from the recognition of the high prevalence of TBI across the injury severity spectrum, particularly concussion, and from the need for new classification systems and new trial design for TBI in both children and adults (8 , 9). We expect that the results of ADAPT, along with those of other ongoing trials and recently completed research in the field, will help provide new insight and clarity into the acute medical management of infants, children, and adolescents with severe TBI and support further refinement of the recommendations in these documents.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The Guidelines address monitoring, thresholds for ICP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and 10 categories of treatments specific to TBI in infants, children, or adolescents. The Guidelines are not intended to cover all topics relevant to the care of patients with severe TBI. Specifically, topics related to general good care for all patients, or all trauma patients, are not included.

Developing protocols that integrate TBI-specific, evidence-based recommendations with general best practices for trauma patients, and that provide guidance, suggestions, or options in areas of TBI management where the evidence is insufficient, is outside the scope of these Guidelines. These recommendations are intended to provide the foundation on which protocols can be developed that are appropriate to different treatment environments. The algorithm developed by the clinical investigators is one example of such a protocol, but not the only possible protocol that could be developed based on these Guidelines.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The methods for developing these Guidelines were organized in two phases—the systematic review, including the identification, assessment, and synthesis of the literature; and the use of that foundation for evidence-based recommendations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Systematic Evidence Review and Synthesis

Literature Search and Review.

Our literature search protocol is described in detail, and the search strategies are in Appendix D of the full online guideline document (1). Please note that all appendices mentioned in this executive summary refer to appendices to the full guidelines document (1).

The key criteria for including studies in the review were as follows: the population included pediatric patients (age ≤ 18 yr) with severe TBI (defined as Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3–8), and the study assessed an included outcome (mortality, neurologic function, or appropriate intermediate outcomes for the topic). Two reviewers independently identified studies to include, and differences were resolved via consensus or by a third reviewer. Detailed inclusion criteria and a list of studies excluded after full-text review are in the online document in Appendices B and E (1). This edition adds studies published from 2010 to June 2017.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Quality Assessment and Data Abstraction of Individual Studies.

All included studies were assessed for potential for bias, which is a systematic approach to assessing the internal validity or quality of studies. The quality criteria used in the second edition were maintained and applied to the newly identified studies of monitoring and treatments. The criteria for threshold studies were revised to be specific to the quality of threshold studies. (See appendix F in the online document [1] for a complete list of the quality criteria used for individual studies.) Key data elements were then extracted from each study and placed into tables. The tables were provided to the clinical investigators and summarized by topic in the guideline document (see summaries by topic in the full report online [1]). Class 1 is the highest class and is limited to good-quality randomized trials. Class 2 includes moderate-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and good-quality cohort or case-control studies. Class 3 is the lowest class and is given to low-quality RCTs, moderate- to low-quality cohort or case-control studies, and treatment series and other noncomparative designs.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The final phase of the evidence review is the synthesis of individual studies into information that the clinical investigators and the methods team use to develop recommendations. This synthesis is described for each topic in the online document in the sections titled Evaluation of the Evidence, following the Recommendations and preceding the Evidence Summary.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Quality of the Body of Evidence.

Assessing the quality of the body of evidence involves four domains: the aggregate quality of the studies, the consistency of the results, whether the evidence provided is direct or indirect, and the precision of the effect estimates. The criteria and ratings are outlined in the Methods section of the online document and more detailed definitions are in Appendix G (1). In addition, the number of studies and number of included subjects are considered. Based on these, an overall assessment is made as to whether the quality of the body of evidence is high, moderate, low, or insufficient. The assessment of the body of evidence for each subtopic is included in a table in each topic section in the full guideline document.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Applicability is the extent to which research findings are useful for informing recommendations for a broader population (usually the population that is the target of the recommendations). In this edition, we considered the applicability of individual studies in the Quality of the Body of Evidence and Applicability section immediately following the recommendations in the full guideline document.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Development of Recommendations.

Classes 1, 2, and 3 studies constitute the evidence on which the recommendations are based. Once evidence was identified, whether or not it could be used to inform recommendations was based on the quality of the body of evidence and consideration of applicability. Under our current methods, identification of evidence is necessary but not sufficient for the development of evidence-based recommendations. If no evidence was identified, no recommendations were made. If the identified evidence was extremely limited (e.g., inconsistent results, imprecise), it could be considered insufficient to support a recommendation.

Given this approach, there were cases in which evidence was identified, but the quality was low and applicability concerns restricted the ability to translate the evidence into recommendations. Even if a recommendation was not made, the studies contributing evidence were included in the full Guideline to acknowledge their place in the body of evidence and make the evidence accessible for future consideration. As new studies are generated and added to the evidence base, we expect to see changes in the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Level of Recommendations.

Recommendations in this edition are designated as level I, level II, or level III. The level of recommendation is determined by the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, the class of the included studies.

The levels were primarily based on the quality of the body of evidence as follows:

  • 1) Level I recommendations were based on a high-quality body of evidence.
  • 2) Level II recommendations were based on a moderate-quality body of evidence.
  • 3) Level III recommendations were based on a low-quality body of evidence.

In addition to the quality of evidence, we also considered applicability. Currently, there is a lack of standards and developed methods to assess applicability. For this reason, applicability alone was not used to downgrade a recommendation; however, we did include and document in the full guideline any applicability issues that were identified and discussed by the authors.

“Insufficient” was used in cases where the body of evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation either because there were no studies identified or because the body of evidence had major quality limitations. If the evidence was rated insufficient, no recommendation was made.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Summary of Changes to Recommendations

This update includes 22 evidence-based recommendations; nine are new or revised significantly from the previous edition. There are no level I recommendations, three recommendations are level II, and the remaining 19 are level III.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide the recommendations for monitoring, thresholds, and treatments, respectively. Each recommendation is numbered with a roman numeral for the level followed by a period and a number counting the recommendations in each topic (So III.1 is the first Level III recommendation and III.2 is the second level III recommendation). In these tables, the recommendations in italics are new or have been significantly revised, whereas those in regular text have not changed or only have changes in wording. The online guideline document includes a section on each topic consisting of an Introduction, Recommendations, Evaluation of the Evidence, and Summary of the Evidence (including evidence tables and a narrative overview).







Back to Top | Article Outline

Monitoring Recommendations

Monitoring does not affect outcomes directly; rather the information from monitoring can be used to direct treatment decisions. Treatment informed by data from monitoring may result in better outcomes than treatment informed solely by data from clinical assessment. Monitoring recommendations are related to the influence on patient outcomes of three types of monitoring: ICP monitoring, advanced cerebral monitoring (ACM), and neuroimaging. The recommendations for ICP and ACM did not change; however, two notes were added to the ACM recommendation. For neuroimaging, one new recommendation suggesting that CT examinations not be used to rule out the possibility of elevated ICP was added to the existing recommendation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Threshold Recommendations

These recommendations are related to threshold values for variables that are monitored during the in-hospital management of patients with severe TBI. This includes thresholds for ICP and CPP. There are no changes to the recommendations from the prior edition. Additional studies that supported the existing recommendations were added to the evidence tables in the full guideline document and are listed in Table 4.



Back to Top | Article Outline

Treatment Recommendations

Table 3 contains the recommendations for 10 treatments included in the Guidelines. These topics are included because they are specific to the in-hospital management of TBI or are related to risks experienced by pediatric TBI patients. The topics that are included reflect current practice but are expected to change as new treatments are developed that may replace or complement existing treatments. These topics include 15 recommendations; of these seven are new or revised. These seven include two recommendations in hyperosmolar therapy; one in analgesics, sedatives, and neuromuscular blockade; one in seizure prophylaxis; two in temperature control; and one in nutrition.

Back to Top | Article Outline


New Evidence

Table 4 lists the 35 new studies (10–46) added to the evidence base that was used to support new or existing recommendations. This table presents the studies by topic, provides the citation, and includes the studies design, the number of patients included (n), and data class. An additional 13 new studies were added to the guideline document that addressed topics without sufficient evidence to support a recommendation (47–59). More details, such as the outcomes and results for all new studies, are included in the evidence tables and narrative in the full online guideline.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Ongoing and Future Research

Evidence-based guidelines rarely (if ever) contain enough data to fully populate a clinical protocol. This is certainly the case with the treatment of severe pediatric TBI. Rather the goal is to contribute to a transparent, ongoing process that leads to better research and more evidence in the future. These Guidelines provide recommendations based on the available evidence and at the same time identify gaps that can inform the future research agenda. These gaps can be filled by creating clinical protocols using consensus where evidence is lacking. Together the gaps and protocols provide structure and identify patient samples for the generation of new research. The new research populates the evidence base which can then be used to further develop the Guidelines, creating a recursive cycle designed to grow the evidence base and increase the number of evidence-based recommendations in the future.

Although the number of studies has increased in this update of the Guidelines, most recommendations are based on a small number of studies that are mostly class 3. We hope this will change as the impact of evidence-based practice is documented and new studies undertaken. We are optimistic that the next update will have a stronger evidence base because an important study of pediatric TBI, designed and executed by a guidelines clinical investigator and coauthor, is concluding. This study, ADAPT, was designed to address 12 a priori hypotheses across five Guidelines topics (advanced neuromonitoring, hyperosmolar therapy, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, ventilation, and nutrition) and is likely to also provide information on other topics and questions from post hoc analyses (5). ADAPT is an important example of the value of a guideline in highlighting what cannot be said due to lack of evidence; those gaps provide opportunities for innovation and direction for research.

In addition to ADAPT, the pediatric TBI community needs to promote and support innovate ways to generate higher quality class 1 and class 2 studies that can inform stronger (i.e., level I and level II) recommendations. These other needs include the following:

  • 1) Research that examines the integration of individual treatments in the context of goal-directed therapy. No treatment or management approach exists independent of other treatments and approaches or independent of the ecology of the treatment setting. The design of meaningful and effective future research must be consistent with this clinical reality.
  • 2) Ongoing identification of new topics for investigation. As our understanding of TBI and trauma improves, it is likely new topics will need to be added to the Guidelines. The literature and ongoing trials need to be scanned regularly. It is important that the Guidelines reliably include what evidence is available for new, emerging topics and treatments.
  • 3) Consistency in data collection across studies. Future research should emphasize consistency in data collection across research projects, such as utilization of the Common Data Elements of the National Institutes of Health (60–63).

It is important that the pediatric TBI research community systematically address these questions by creating a prioritized research agenda and advocating for additional high-quality research that can populate the evidence base for future guidelines.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The increase in the number of studies as well as the number of class 2 studies and level II recommendations is encouraging. The growth in the evidence base strengthens the utility of the evidence-based recommendations as a basis for local protocols, which can incorporate consensus where evidence is still not available. However, this update also underscores that much work remains to be done if our goal is evidence-based treatment designed to improve outcomes for children who sustain severe TBI.

Back to Top | Article Outline


We would like to thank the following people at the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University for their invaluable assistance in producing this document: Roger Chou, MD, Elaine Graham, MLS, Andrew Hamilton, MS, MLS, Hyon Hildebrant, BA, Shaun Ramirez, MPH, Leah Williams, BS. We also thank Jamshid Ghajar, MD, PhD, from the Brain Trauma Foundation and Stanford University.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Kochanek PM, Tasker RC, Carney N, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Third Edition: Update of the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019; 20 (Suppl 1):S1–S82
2. Kochanek PM, Carney N, Adelson PD, et al. Guidelines for the acute medical management of severe traumatic brain injury in infants, children, and adolescents—second edition.[Erratum appears in Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012 Mar;13(2):252]. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012; 13(Suppl 1):S1–82
3. Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery 2017; 80:6–15
4. Kochanek PM, Tasker RC, Bell MJ, et al. Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: 2019 Consensus and Guidelines-Based Algorithm for First and Second Tier Therapies. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019; 20:269–279
5. Bell MJ, Adelson PD, Hutchison JS, et al; Multiple Medical Therapies for Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Workgroup: Differences in medical therapy goals for children with severe traumatic brain injury-an international study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013; 14:811–818
6. Bell MJ, Adelson PD, Wisniewski SR; Investigators of the ADAPT Study: Challenges and opportunities for pediatric severe TBI-review of the evidence and exploring a way forward. Childs Nerv Syst 2017; 33:1663–1667
7. Kurz JE, Poloyac SM, Abend NS, et al; Investigators for the Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial: Variation in anticonvulsant selection and electroencephalographic monitoring following severe traumatic brain injury in children-understanding resource availability in sites participating in a comparative effectiveness study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17:649–657
8. Jha RM, Kochanek PM. Adding insight to injury: A new era in neurotrauma. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16:578–580
9. Kochanek PM, Bell MJ. Tackling the challenges of clinical trials for severe traumatic brain injury in children: Screening, phenotyping, and adapting. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:1544–1546
10. Bennett TD, DeWitt PE, Greene TH, et al. Functional outcome after intracranial pressure monitoring for children with severe traumatic brain injury. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171:965–971
    11. Alkhoury F, Kyriakides TC. Intracranial pressure monitoring in children with severe traumatic brain injury: National trauma data bank-based review of outcomes. JAMA Surg 2014; 149:544–548
    12. Bennett TD, Riva-Cambrin J, Keenan HT, et al. Variation in intracranial pressure monitoring and outcomes in pediatric traumatic brain injury. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012; 166:641–647
    13. Stippler M, Ortiz V, Adelson PD, et al. Brain tissue oxygen monitoring after severe traumatic brain injury in children: Relationship to outcome and association with other clinical parameters. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012; 10:383–391
      14. Figaji AA, Zwane E, Graham Fieggen A, et al. The effect of increased inspired fraction of oxygen on brain tissue oxygen tension in children with severe traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 2010; 12:430–437
      15. Bailey BM, Liesemer K, Statler KD, et al. Monitoring and prediction of intracranial hypertension in pediatric traumatic brain injury: Clinical factors and initial head computed tomography. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 72:263–270
        16. Bata SC, Yung M. Role of routine repeat head imaging in paediatric traumatic brain injury. ANZ J Surg 2014; 84:438–441
        17. Miller Ferguson N, Shein SL, Kochanek PM, et al. Intracranial hypertension and cerebral hypoperfusion in children with severe traumatic brain injury: Thresholds and burden in accidental and abusive insults. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17:444–450
        18. Mehta A, Kochanek PM, Tyler-Kabara E, et al. Relationship of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure with outcome in young children after severe traumatic brain injury. Dev Neurosci 2010; 32:413–419
        19. Allen BB, Chiu YL, Gerber LM, et al. Age-specific cerebral perfusion pressure thresholds and survival in children and adolescents with severe traumatic brain injury*. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2014; 15:62–70
        20. Vavilala MS, Kernic MA, Wang J, et al; Pediatric Guideline Adherence and Outcomes Study: Acute care clinical indicators associated with discharge outcomes in children with severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:2258–2266
        21. Shein SL, Ferguson NM, Kochanek PM, et al. Effectiveness of pharmacological therapies for intracranial hypertension in children with severe traumatic brain injury–results from an automated data collection system time-synched to drug administration. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17:236–245
        22. Piper BJ, Harrigan PW. Hypertonic saline in paediatric traumatic brain injury: A review of nine years’ experience with 23.4% hypertonic saline as standard hyperosmolar therapy. Anaesth Intensive Care 2015; 43:204–210
        23. Webster DL, Fei L, Falcone RA, et al. Higher-volume hypertonic saline and increased thrombotic risk in pediatric traumatic brain injury. J Crit Care 2015; 30:1267–1271
        24. Gonda DD, Meltzer HS, Crawford JR, et al. Complications associated with prolonged hypertonic saline therapy in children with elevated intracranial pressure. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013; 14:610–620
        25. Welch TP, Wallendorf MJ, Kharasch ED, et al. Fentanyl and midazolam are ineffective in reducing episodic intracranial hypertension in severe pediatric traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 2016; 44:809–818
        26. Andrade AF, Paiva WS, Amorim RL, et al. Continuous ventricular cerebrospinal fluid drainage with intracranial pressure monitoring for management of posttraumatic diffuse brain swelling. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2011; 69:79–84
        27. Liesemer K, Bratton SL, Zebrack CM, et al. Early post-traumatic seizures in moderate to severe pediatric traumatic brain injury: Rates, risk factors, and clinical features. J Neurotrauma 2011; 28:755–762
        28. Tasker RC, Vonberg FW, Ulano ED, et al. Updating evidence for using hypothermia in pediatric severe traumatic brain injury: Conventional and bayesian meta-analytic perspectives. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18:355–362
        29. Crompton EM, Lubomirova I, Cotlarciuc I, et al. Meta-analysis of therapeutic hypothermia for traumatic brain injury in adult and pediatric patients. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:575–583
        30. Tasker RC, Akhondi-Asl A. Updating evidence for using therapeutic hypothermia in pediatric severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:e1091
        31. Crompton E, Sharma P. The authors reply. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:e1091–e1092
        32. Adelson PD, Wisniewski SR, Beca J, et al; Paediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Consortium: Comparison of hypothermia and normothermia after severe traumatic brain injury in children (Cool Kids): A phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12:546–553
        33. Beca J, McSharry B, Erickson S, et al; Pediatric Study Group of the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group: Hypothermia for traumatic brain injury in children-a phase ii randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:1458–1466
        34. Hutchison JS, Frndova H, Lo TY, et al; Hypothermia Pediatric Head Injury Trial Investigators; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group: Impact of hypotension and low cerebral perfusion pressure on outcomes in children treated with hypothermia therapy following severe traumatic brain injury: A post hoc analysis of the Hypothermia Pediatric Head Injury Trial. Dev Neurosci 2010; 32:406–412
        35. Empey PE, Velez de Mendizabal N, Bell MJ, et al; Pediatric TBI Consortium: Hypothermia Investigators: Therapeutic hypothermia decreases phenytoin elimination in children with traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2379–2387
        36. Mellion SA, Bennett KS, Ellsworth GL, et al. High-dose barbiturates for refractory intracranial hypertension in children with severe traumatic brain injury. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013; 14:239–247
        37. Pechmann A, Anastasopoulos C, Korinthenberg R, et al. Decompressive craniectomy after severe traumatic brain injury in children: Complications and outcome. Neuropediatrics 2015; 46:5–12
        38. Prasad GL, Gupta DK, Mahapatra AK, et al. Surgical results of decompressive craniectomy in very young children: A level one trauma centre experience from India. Brain Inj 2015:1–8
          39. Desgranges FP, Javouhey E, Mottolese C, et al. Intraoperative blood loss during decompressive craniectomy for intractable intracranial hypertension after severe traumatic brain injury in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2014; 30:1393–1398
          40. Khan SA, Shallwani H, Shamim MS, et al. Predictors of poor outcome of decompressive craniectomy in pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury: A retrospective single center study from Pakistan. Childs Nerv Syst 2014; 30:277–281
          41. Csókay A, Emelifeonwu JA, Fügedi L, et al. The importance of very early decompressive craniectomy as a prevention to avoid the sudden increase of intracranial pressure in children with severe traumatic brain swelling (retrospective case series). Childs Nerv Syst 2012; 28:441–444
          42. Suarez EP, Gonzalez AS, Diaz CP, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in 14 children with severe head injury: Clinical results with long-term follow-up and review of the literature. J Trauma 2011; 71:133–140
          43. Adamo MA, Drazin D, Waldman JB. Decompressive craniectomy and postoperative complication management in infants and toddlers with severe traumatic brain injuries. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2009; 3:334–339
            44. Figaji AA, Fieggen AG, Argent A, et al. Surgical treatment for “brain compartment syndrome” in children with severe head injury. S Afr Med J 2006; 96:969–975
            45. Messing-Jünger AM, Marzog J, Wöbker G, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in severe brain injury. Zentralbl Neurochir 2003; 64:171–177
            46. Taha AA, Badr L, Westlake C, et al. Effect of early nutritional support on intensive care unit length of stay and neurological status at discharge in children with severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurosci Nurs 2011; 43:291–297
            47. Bar-Joseph G, Guilburd Y, Tamir A, et al. Effectiveness of ketamine in decreasing intracranial pressure in children with intracranial hypertension. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2009; 4:40–46
            48. Bourdages M, Bigras JL, Farrell CA, et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group: Cardiac arrhythmias associated with severe traumatic brain injury and hypothermia therapy. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2010; 11:408–414
            49. Chin KH, Bell MJ, Wisniewski SR, et al; Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Consortium: Hypothermia Investigators: Effect of administration of neuromuscular blocking agents in children with severe traumatic brain injury on acute complication rates and outcomes: A secondary analysis from a randomized, controlled trial of therapeutic hypothermia. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015; 16:352–358
            50. Chung MG, O’Brien NF. Prevalence of early posttraumatic seizures in children with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury despite levetiracetam prophylaxis. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17:150–156
            51. Josan VA, Sgouros S. Early decompressive craniectomy may be effective in the treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury. Childs Nerv Syst 2006; 22:1268–1274
            52. Mhanna MJ, Mallah WE, Verrees M, et al. Outcome of children with severe traumatic brain injury who are treated with decompressive craniectomy. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2015:1–7
            53. Oluigbo CO, Wilkinson CC, Stence NV, et al. Comparison of outcomes following decompressive craniectomy in children with accidental and nonaccidental blunt cranial trauma. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012; 9:125–132
            54. Pearl PL, McCarter R, McGavin CL, et al. Results of phase II levetiracetam trial following acute head injury in children at risk for posttraumatic epilepsy. Epilepsia 2013; 54:e135–e137
            55. Roumeliotis N, Dong C, Pettersen G, et al. Hyperosmolar therapy in pediatric traumatic brain injury: A retrospective study. Childs Nerv Syst 2016; 32:2363–2368
            56. Rubiano AM, Villarreal W, Hakim EJ, et al. Early decompressive craniectomy for neurotrauma: An institutional experience. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2009; 15:28–38
            57. Su E, Bell MJ, Kochanek PM, et al. Increased CSF concentrations of myelin basic protein after TBI in infants and children: Absence of significant effect of therapeutic hypothermia. Neurocrit Care 2012; 17:401–407
            58. Taylor A, Butt W, Rosenfeld J, et al. A randomized trial of very early decompressive craniectomy in children with traumatic brain injury and sustained intracranial hypertension. Childs Nerv Syst 2001; 17:154–162
            59. Thomale UW, Graetz D, Vajkoczy P, et al. Severe traumatic brain injury in children—a single center experience regarding therapy and long-term outcome. Childs Nerv Syst 2010; 26:1563–1573
            60. Adelson PD, Pineda J, Bell MJ, et al; Pediatric TBI Demographics and Clinical Assessment Working Group: Common data elements for pediatric traumatic brain injury: Recommendations from the working group on demographics and clinical assessment. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29:639–653
            61. Berger RP, Beers SR, Papa L, et al; Pediatric TBI CDE Biospecimens and Biomarkers Workgroup: Common data elements for pediatric traumatic brain injury: Recommendations from the biospecimens and biomarkers workgroup. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29:672–677
            62. Duhaime AC, Holshouser B, Hunter JV, et al. Common data elements for neuroimaging of traumatic brain injury: Pediatric considerations. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29:629–633
            63. McCauley SR, Wilde EA, Anderson VA, et al; Pediatric TBI Outcomes Workgroup: Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in pediatric traumatic brain injury research. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29:678–705

            critical care; evidence-based medicine; guidelines; pediatrics; systematic review; traumatic brain injury

            ©2019The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies