PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 10, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Consensus statement from the 2025 Delphi panel on cerebral microdialysis in critical care

View Full Paper
AHAdel HelmyMBMichael S BakerPCPatrick M Chen

Key Points

  • The aim is to establish expert consensus on the use of cerebral microdialysis in critical care and to offer updated guidance for practice.
  • Conducted a 3-round modified Delphi study with international experts.
  • Defined consensus as ≥75% agreement among non-abstaining respondents.
  • Revised statements based on feedback from panelists.
  • Involved 67 invited experts from 9 countries.
  • 60% of invited experts participated, achieving 97% consensus on 60 of 62 items.
  • Consensus covered 9 domains including indications, technical considerations, and management protocols.
  • Provided new guidance for intracerebral hemorrhage and comprehensive reporting.
  • Identified 10 barriers to clinical adoption of cerebral microdialysis.

Abstract

Purpose: Secondary brain injury is a common cause of poor outcome after trauma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage, and optimizing treatment requires real-time insight into cerebral metabolism. Cerebral microdialysis (CMD) uniquely provides key related information, yet consensus on its use has not been updated since publication of the consensus statement from the 2014 International Microdialysis Forum. We aimed to assess expert consensus on the use of CMD in critical care and provide contemporary guidance to standardize practice and advance clinical implementation. Methods: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi study with international experts in CMD and neurocritical care. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement among non-abstaining respondents, with a minimum of 30 non-abstaining respondents required per statement. Statements not reaching consensus were iteratively revised based on panelist feedback. Results: Forty of 67 invited experts (60%) from 9 countries participated. Sixty of 62 individual items achieved consensus (97%) across 9 domains: indications and patient selection, technical and procedural considerations, detecting deterioration and secondary injury, metabolic interpretation, treatment algorithms, glucose management, sampling frequency, core reporting items, and barriers to clinical implementation. Conclusion: This consensus statement provides updated, evidence-informed recommendations for the use of CMD in critical care. The panel reaffirmed many core recommendations from the 2014 consensus while making targeted advances: cautious extension of guidance to intracerebral hemorrhage, comprehensive reporting guidance addressing frequently omitted elements (19 items vs. 6 in 2014), and identification of 10 key barriers to routine clinical adoption.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Helmy et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d896046c1944d70ce072cchttps://doi.org/10.17863/cam.129045
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Consensus statement from the 2025 Delphi panel on cerebral microdialysis in critical care2026
  2. 2Cerebral Microdialysis: Going Deep into Brain Biochemistry for a Better Understanding of Pathomechanisms of Acute Brain Injury2017 · 1 citations
  3. 3Cerebral microdialysis – mechanism of action and application in clinical practice2025
  4. 4Defining metabolic abnormalities in acute human traumatic brain injury with cerebral microdialysis and multimodality monitoring2025 · 4 citations
  5. 5Acute Focal Neurological Deficits in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage2003 · 115 citations