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

Read full text
Authors: Adel E Helmy, Michael S. Baker, Patrick M. Chen, Aoife Quinn, Ibrahim Jalloh, Louise Roberts, Neeraj Badjatia, Antonio Belli, Martyn G. Boutelle, M. Ross Bullock, Jan Claassen, Jonathan Coles
+37 more Claire Dahyot‐Fizelier, Ari Ercole, Brandon P. Foreman, Clare Gallagher, Emily J. Gilmore, Arun K. Gupta, Deepak Kumar Gupta, Raimund Helbok, Peter D. LeRoux, Sandra Magnoni, Halinder S. Mangat, Niklas Marklund, Anna Teresa Mazzeo, David Krishna Menon, David Nelson, Virginia Newcombe, Mauro Oddo, K. O’Phelan, Patrizio Petrone, Maria Antonia Poca, Ava M. Puccio, Claudia Sue Robertson, Elham Rostami, Juan Sahuquillo, Matthew G. Stovell, Anthony John Strong, Teodor Svedung Wettervik, Eric P. Thelin, Ivan S. Timofeev, Ramon Torné, Alex B. Valadka, Sara Venturini, Paul M Vespa, Chisomo Zimphango, Keri L.H. Carpenter, J S Chen, Peter John Hutchinson
Cited by: 1
References: 75

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.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances Acute Kidney Injury Research Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders

Publication details

Journal / source
Critical Care
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Volume
30
Issue
1
Publication date
13 April 2026
Language
EN