 |
 |
For those of you not on the trauma mailing list, this appeared recently in answer to a request for information.... ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: Stuart Baker [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Hi! Steroids have been shown to not be of benefit in controlling intracranial pressure or changing outcome in head injuries. They have been suggested by many to have adverse cerebral metabolic effects in these patients, and make outcome worse - there is a section on steroids in the American Neurosurgical Society's guidelines for management of severe head injury. (end of quote) I seem to remember recently seeing a request for collaboration in a "steroids for head injuries" trial. I think its acronym was CRASH. There was some discussion in this list, the upshot of which was "don't touch it with a barge-pole - the MDU/MPS won't back you". I'm intrigued as to the origins of CRASH, especialy as the evidence seems to be conclusive enough already against steroids use in HI (see quote above).Is this why the defence societies are advising against it? Can anyone illuminate me?