Clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with a chronic subdural haematoma: multidisciplinary recommendations from presentation to recovery ======================================================================================================================================================== * DJ Stubbs * BM Davies * E Edlmann * A Ansari * TH Bashford * P Braude * D Bulters * S Camp * G Carr * JP Coles * D DeMonteverde-Robb * J Dhesi * J Dinsmore * NR Evans * E Foster * E Fox * I Froom * CS Gillespie * N Gray * K Grieve * P Hartley * F Lecky * A Kolias * J Jeeves * A Joannides * T Minett * I Moppett * MH Nathanson * V Newcombe * JG Outtrim * N Owen * L Peterman * S Ralhan * D Shipway * R Sinha * W Thomas * P Whitfield * SR Wilson * A Zolnourian * M Dixon-Woods * DK Menon * PJ Hutchinson * the Improving care in elderly neurosurgery initiative (ICENI) working group ## Abstract **Introduction** A cSDH is an encapsulated collection of fluid and blood degradation products in the subdural space. It is increasingly common, affecting older people and those living with frailty. Currently, no guidance exists to define optimal care from onset of symptoms through to recovery. This paper presents the first consensus- built recommendations for best practice in the care of cSDH, co-designed to support each stage of the patient pathway. **Methods** Guideline development was led by a multidisciplinary Steering Committee with representation from diverse clinical groups, professional associations, patients, and carers. Literature searching to identify relevant evidence was guided by core clinical questions formulated through facilitated discussion with specially convened working groups. A modified Delphi exercise was undertaken to build consensus on draft statements for inclusion in the guideline using survey methodology and an in-person meeting. The proposed guideline was subsequently endorsed by the Society for British Neurological Surgeons, Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society, Association of Anaesthetists, British Association of Neuroscience Nurses, British Geriatric Society, and Centre for Perioperative Care. **Results** We identified that high quality evidence was generally lacking in the literature, although randomised controlled trial (RCT) data were available to inform specific recommendations on aspects of surgical technique and use of corticosteroids. The final guideline represents the outcome of synthesising the available evidence as well as consensus-built expert opinion and patient involvement. The guideline comprises 67 recommendations across 8 major themes, covering: presentation and diagnosis, neurosurgical triage and shared decision-making, non-operative management, perioperative management (including of anticoagulation), timing of surgery, intraoperative care, postoperative care, rehabilitation and recovery. **Conclusions** We present the first multidisciplinary guideline for the care of patients with cSDH. The recommendations reflect a paradigm shift in the care of cSDH, recognising and formalising the need for multidisciplinary and collaborative clinical management and communication and decision-making with patients delivered effectively across secondary and tertiary care. Keywords * guideline * chronic subdural haematoma * perioperative care ## Introduction A chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) is an encapsulated collection of fluid, blood, and blood degradation products layered between the arachnoid and dura matter coverings on the brain’s surface.1 It is a common neurological condition, most often affecting older patients with other health conditions, frailty, or anti-thrombotic use. 2–4 Symptoms may be sub-acute in onset,2 mirroring those of a slowly evolving stroke, and can occur with or without antecedent trauma. 5 Given its impact on patient functioning and experience, it can be considered a ‘sentinel’ health event 6,7 similar to conditions such as fractured neck of femur. Data from both the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) suggest that cSDH case numbers will rise by 50% over the next two decades. 8,9 However, while care of a similarly vulnerable surgical population – people with fractured neck of femur – has been revolutionised by guideline-led and multidisciplinary co-management supported by audit, care of cSDH remains very poorly optimised. 10,11 No best practice guidance exists. Care is delivered via complex and often fragmented systems spanning regional networks and professional and organisational boundaries, with patients needing input from multiple disciplines across primary, community, secondary and tertiary care that may not always be well coordinated. Inter-hospital transfer is common because surgery needs to be provided by adult neurosurgical services, which are concentrated in approximately 30 locations across the UK and Ireland. 12 Up to 90% of patients needing surgical care for cSDH initially present to local secondary care settings, with over 40% of these repatriated to their referring institution following surgery. 13 Absence of best practice guidance and the challenges of the poorly defined and sub- optimal care model are implicated in known difficulties in communication, patient flow, multidisciplinary coordination, and resourcing; resulting in significant acute bed usage, patient and staff dissatisfaction, and perioperative morbidity. 2,13,14 This guideline seeks to address these problems by co-designing a new approach to best practice. Based on current available evidence and consensus-built with professionals, patients, and carers, this guidance seeks to provide a resource to inform each stage of the patient journey from diagnosis, surgical triage, and referral through the perioperative period and on to recovery. It has been designed to be relevant for those caring for patients with cSDH both in and outside of specialist neuroscience units (NSU), and those involved in planning and organising services. ### Who do the recommendations apply to? These recommendations apply to any patients diagnosed with a cSDH in secondary or tertiary care in the UK, from the onset of symptoms through to recovery. In clarifying “what good looks like” for this condition, they will help to reduce unwarranted variation in practice and outcomes, and will be helpful in upskilling those less familiar with this condition (e.g. because they are based outside tertiary neurosurgical centres). This is vital, as pathway analysis has demonstrated that cSDH requires input from nearly 30 distinct in-patient specialities and, as a cohort, over a third of the inpatient stay is in non-specialist centres.13 Our guidelines also make recommendations for the care of patients initially triaged to ‘non-operative’ management. This is a significant cohort (approximately 30% of all referrals to neurosurgical teams) 2 but evidence to guide the care of this group is extremely limited. The recommendations have been co-designed to address specific challenges in the perioperative care of cSDH. They should be viewed as complementary to other more general guidance for the delivery of safe perioperative care, such as the Royal College of Anaesthetists’ core guidelines for the provision of anaesthetic services 15 and guidelines on perioperative care of individuals living with frailty issued by the Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC). 16 Our recommendations do not apply to those with acute subdural haematoma (aSDH) which often occurs as a result of major trauma.17 ## Methods Development of the guideline was protocol-led,18 informed by methodology used by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 19 and the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) checklist.20 Per protocol, 18 a multidisciplinary Steering Committee of experts in the care of cSDH with representation from patients and carers and relevant professional societies and associations was convened. ### Statement generation Five working groups were formed to cover distinct phases of care, based on patient journey and stakeholder identification 13 **[Figure 1].** Participants with relevant expertise for the working groups were recruited through professional networks, snowball sampling, recommendation by professional society, or literature searching. In total, 17 different medical or allied health disciplines were represented across the working groups, as was a patient-facing charity, the *Neurological Alliance*. Separate patient and carer representatives were identified from two separate UK regions. Joint working group leads were appointed, each with a neurosurgical lead paired with a relevant other specialty lead (e.g. emergency medicine, geriatric medicine). To ensure that recommendations were relevant to the broadly defined multidisciplinary teams, clinicians from across secondary and tertiary care were purposefully included in the working groups. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/F1) Figure 1: Guideline working groups and their relationship to sections of the final guideline Separate facilitated meetings of each working group were helped to identify key clinical questions specified in the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) to guide literature searching. 44 PICO questions were grouped into 12 key themes and mapped to the current literature via a systematic search. GRADE methodology was used to assess the evidence (**supplemental material**) and, where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken, with some outputs already accepted for publication 21,22. This work, together with a parallel umbrella review of existing systematic reviews 23, identified that most areas of cSDH care were lacking in evidence. The Steering Committee oversaw and reviewed outputs of the individual working groups, and drafted recommendations based on evidence reviews and consultation with the working groups. Evidence tables derived from literature searching and the full list of PICO questions are included in supplementary material to this paper. ### Consensus-building In a novel step we then consensus-built the draft recommendations with the wider professional community using a modified Delphi exercise hosted on an online collaboration platform (Thiscovery). This involved a two-round survey and an in- person meeting. Open-text comments and quantitative analysis (pre-defined consensus threshold of >66% agreement to include) of survey findings were used to identify how the statements could be optimised, with final agreement reached in a consensus meeting with patient and carer representation in November 2023. As such, the guideline represents an informed synthesis of evidence, where available, and expert opinion, a necessary approach given the paucity of published research in many key clinical areas. During the consensus meeting, evidence that had emerged since the original literature searches (Summer 2022) was presented to attendees. Revisions to the guideline following consensus-building exercise were approved by the Steering Committee before the guideline draft was submitted for external review and endorsement by professional societies. Minor wording changes suggested by this process were incorporated and ratified by the Steering Committee. Full details of all changes are available in a separate paper summarising our consensus-building exercise and its supplementary material. ### Patient and public perspectives Patient and carer perspectives were fundamental to the co-design approach. We convened a patient and carer panel to review the PICO questions and agree the scope of the future guideline. This session was chaired by anaesthetic (DJS), neurosurgical (EE, BMD), nursing (JGO), and charity (GC) representatives from our Steering Committee. Additional patient and carer representatives (IF, EF, JJ) who had experience of cSDH care across two UK neurosurgical centres attended our in-person consensus meeting. These representatives reviewed all documents pre and post meeting, participated actively in discussions, proposed changes based on their lived experience, and had voting rights equivalent to others. Additional review by patient and public representatives to endorsing societies (CPOC) highlighted how inter-hospital transfer could be distressing and disruptive to patients, especially those with acute or chronic cognitive impairment. The question of whether an advocate could accompany such patients, or whether transfers could be scheduled for day (rather than night times) to help reduce distress, was raised, and will need to be considered in future updates of this guideline once the relevant evidence and consultation has taken place. However, in the meantime, we recognise that although important, such considerations should not delay clinically urgent transfers. ### Strength of recommendations In general, statements in the guideline contain a verb and action that might be performed in clinical practice. The strength of each recommendation is incorporated into the text using the following definitions adopted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 24. * *Must* – for instance there is a legal duty to apply a recommendation or the consequences of not following a recommendation is extremely serious * *Should* –the intervention will do more good than harm for the vast majority of patients * *Could* – will do more good than harm for most patients. * *Consider* is used to indicate that the recommendation is less strong than a ‘should’ recommendation with more closely matched risks and benefits. ### Terminology and phrasing At certain points in the text, we have used certain phrases to identify recurrent concepts. Sometimes we have had to assign certain decisions (such as judging what is ‘significant’ or ‘urgent’) to clinical decision-makers because evidence does not exist to define accurate thresholds. Throughout, we use the term **‘patient’s advocates’** to encompass the many different individuals who may be able to provide information about a patient’s wishes or health. This does not reflect a specific legal term (such as an ‘independent mental capacity advocate’) but instead is intended to encompass the broadest definition of a patient’s ‘relevant others’. This includes (but is not limited to) a patient’s next-of-kin, family, or close friends. These individuals may vary from person to person. Understanding this and communicating with the correct individual(s) where appropriate is an important expectation. We have used the phrase **‘geriatrician’** and **‘geriatric medicine’** to identify medical specialists in the care of older patients. We recognise that this term is sometimes criticised, and was the subject of much debate in our consensus meeting. In the end, we adopted it following the input of the multiple representatives from this discipline on our steering group, and because it is the term adopted by the relevant professional society in the United Kingdom – the ‘British Geriatrics Society’. ## Recommendations In total we make 67 statements, across 8 major themes. ### 1: Presentation, diagnosis, natural history, initial decision-making, and transfer #### 1.1 Presentation and diagnosis ![Table1](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T1) #### 1.2 Referral to neurosurgery ![Table2](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T2.medium.gif) [Table2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T2) #### 1.3 Additional investigations ![Table3](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T3.medium.gif) [Table3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T3) ### 2: Neurosurgical triage, shared decision-making, and inter-hospital transfer #### 2.1 Shared decision-making ![Table4](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T4) #### 2.2 Indications for surgery ![Table5](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T5.medium.gif) [Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T5) #### 2.3 Adjuvant therapies ![Table6](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T6) #### 2.4 Inter-hospital transfer ![Table7](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T7.medium.gif) [Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T7) ### 3: Patients triaged to initial non-operative management #### 3.1 Management of other conditions ![Table8](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T8) #### 3.2 Anticoagulation ![Table9](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T9.medium.gif) [Table9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T9) #### 3.3 Location and coordination of care ![Table10](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T10.medium.gif) [Table10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T10) #### 3.4 Monitoring ![Table11](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T11.medium.gif) [Table11](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T11) ### 4: Perioperative management #### 4.1 Consideration of perioperative risk and consent ![Table12](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T12.medium.gif) [Table12](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T12) #### 4.2 Multidisciplinary care ![Table13](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T13.medium.gif) [Table13](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T13) #### 4.3 Identification of delirium ![Table14](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T14.medium.gif) [Table14](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T14) #### 4.4 Investigations ![Table15](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T15.medium.gif) [Table15](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T15) #### 4.5 Perioperative management of antithrombotic medication ![Table16](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T16.medium.gif) [Table16](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T16) ### 5: Timing and planning of surgery #### 5.1 Timing of surgery ![Table17](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T17.medium.gif) [Table17](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T17) #### 5.2 Out of hours operating ![Table18](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T18.medium.gif) [Table18](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T18) #### 5.3 Staff seniority ![Table19](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table19](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T19) ### 6: Surgical and anaesthetic care #### 6.1 Surgical care ![Table20](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T20.medium.gif) [Table20](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T20) #### 6.2 Anaesthesia ![Table21](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T21.medium.gif) [Table21](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T21) ### 7: Postoperative care #### 7.1 Location and delivery of care ![Table22](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table22](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T22) #### 7.2 Drain management ![Table23](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T23.medium.gif) [Table23](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T23) #### 7.3 Postoperative imaging ![Table24](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T24.medium.gif) [Table24](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T24) #### 7.4 Post-operative mobilisation ![Table25](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T25.medium.gif) [Table25](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T25) #### 7.5 Thromboprophylaxis ![Table26](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T26.medium.gif) [Table26](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T26) ### 8: Rehabilitation and recovery #### 8.1 Repatriation ![Table27](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table27](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T27) #### 8.2 Discharge communication ![Table28](http://medrxiv.org/) [Table28](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T28) #### 8.3 Recurrence of symptoms and detection of surgical complications ![Table29](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T29.medium.gif) [Table29](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/T29) ## Discussion This document provides the first comprehensive, integrated set of recommendations as to what constitutes best practice in the care of cSDH, developed through novel, transparent, and robust methods. This section summarises key information pertaining to development and interpretation of these recommendations, which are largely consistent with the AGREE II checklist 20. ### Literature support Our reviews of the evidence found that published literature on which to base recommendations relating to non-surgical aspects of cSDH care were lacking, as summarised in our published umbrella review of systematic reviews 23. The chosen wording of each statement in the guidance therefore reflects the integration of all available evidence (including expert opinion and consultation through the consensus- building exercise) by the Steering Committee. The phrasing reflects the strength of our recommendations, consistent with NICE approaches 24. Of 73 published systematic reviews identified, 63 (86%) related to surgery or the management of related complications. For some surgical issues, high quality evidence, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), was available to inform practice, for example relating to the use of subdural drains **(recommendation 6.1a)**. 28–30 Recent RCTs have also explored the role of adjunctive corticosteroids,31,32 based on increased understanding that formation and maintenance of a cSDH reflects a chronic inflammatory process.1 These trials broadly showed that the risks of using corticosteroids outweighed any observed benefit, meaning it was possible to make firm recommendations relating to their use **(recommendation 2.3a).** ### Research gaps and areas of emerging evidence We identified that cSDH is an area of active research, with a systematic review of registered and running RCTs in cSDH 33 identifying 26 ongoing RCTs in 2020. Emerging trials are mainly focusing on surgical techniques and adjunctive medical therapies (including steroids and tranexamic acid). However, our Steering Committee identified research gaps that require urgent examination, as is apparent from the published umbrella review.23 Nine key areas emerged during the guideline development process as particular priorities: *relevance of a national registry/audit, antithrombotic management, communication strategies, population and perioperative risk, natural history of non-operative cSDH, impact of protocolised multidisciplinary care, mode of anaesthesia, middle meningeal artery embolisation, and adjuvant medical therapies*. MMA embolisation, a radiological treatment that has been gaining popularity as an adjunctive or single intervention for patients with cSDH,34 was an area of keen debate during guideline development. The Steering Committee are aware that several trials have reported early results, but, at the time of guideline publication, none was available as a peer-reviewed publication. At our consensus meeting in November 2023, we agreed therefore that MMA should only be used within a research context. This is in keeping with subsequently published recommendations from NICE in December 2023.35 We recognise that evidence in this field is rapidly emerging and it will be reviewed as part of future guideline updates. ### Implementation Implementing guidelines into practice is challenging.36 The co-design methodology, and engagement of the wider professional community throughout, is likely to be helpful in securing professional support for the recommendations, but many other considerations are relevant. To begin exploring influences on implementation in more detail, we have launched a consultation survey of professionals and healthcare managers to identify core challenges, and examples of pre-existing good practice.37 These findings will provide early pilot data to inform future implementation of the (necessarily) complex interventions that will be required to enact these recommendations in practice. It is vital that any such implementation is done in a manner that provides evidence as to the effectiveness of these recommendations while developing an infrastructure to track their impact in a manner analogous to that already used in conditions such as hip fracture.38 ### Planned updates The first scheduled review of this guideline is November 2026 (3 years from the date of the final consensus meeting). Review will be jointly led by the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society, who will liaise with other endorsing societies to ensure multidisciplinary oversight and review of new evidence. ### Conclusions These guidelines offer a comprehensive set of recommendations for the multidisciplinary care of patients diagnosed with a cSDH. High quality evidence is currently lacking in many areas, so these recommendations reflect both the available evidence and a distillation of consensus opinion from the Steering Committee and the wider professional community, as well as patients and carers. If implemented in full, they would stimulate a paradigm shift in the care of patients with a cSDH, bringing the care of this complex and vulnerable cohort in line with other high-risk surgical groups. Further work will ensure the guideline is maintained in line with emerging evidence and explore routes to implement, evidence, and audit these recommendations in practice. ## Supporting information Supplemental files [[supplements/312047_file04.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Funding This project was funded by the Association of Anaesthetists (WKR0-2021-0014) and the Addenbrooke’s charitable trust (ACT - #900268). The modified Delphi exercise and Mary Dixon-Woods’ contribution was supported by The Health Foundation’s grant to the THIS institute. The Health Foundation is an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. ## Contributions DJ Stubbs and BM Davies contributed equally to the generation of this guideline and should be considered joint first authors. ## Review and endorsement These recommendations have been separately reviewed and endorsed by the following national professional organisations: * Society for British Neurological Surgeons * Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society (NACCS) * Association of Anaesthetists (AoA) * British Association of Neuroscience Nurses (BANN) * British Geriatric Society (BGS) * Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC) We are grateful to the council members of these organisations for their time and expertise in reviewing and refining these guidelines. Representation from these societies to the guideline steering committee was provided by; PW and PJAH (SBNS), SW and JPC (NACCS), MN (AoA), JGO (BANN), DS (BGS), JD (CPOC). ## Group authorship statement: the Improving care in elderly neurosurgery initiative (ICENI) group Adegboyega G, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Amarouche M, Department of Neurosurgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK Borg N, Department of Neurosurgery, Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska, USA Brannigan J, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Brennan PM, Department of Neurosurgery, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK Brown C, Department of Neurotrauma, Norfolk and Norwich University hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, UK Corbett C, Department of Neurotrauma, Norfolk and Norwich University hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, UK Dammers R, Department of Neurosurgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus MC Stroke Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Das T, Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK Feilding E, Department of Aging, Salford Royal NHS Trust, Manchester, UK Gamage G, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Galea M, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK Glancz L, Department of Neurosurgery, Queens medical centre, Nottingham, UK Goacher E, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Gooding F, The Brain Tumour Charity, London, UK Grange R, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Hassan T, Department of Neurosurgery, Alexandria University, Egypt Holl DC, Neurosurgery Department Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands Jones J, Department of Neurosurgery, St. Georges hospital, London, UK Knight R, The Burwell Surgery, Cambridge, UK Luoma V, Department of Anaesthesia, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK Lee KS, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Mantle O, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Mazzoleni A, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Mee H, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Mowforth O, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Novak S, Department of Neurology, Cambridge University hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK Omar V, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Peck G, School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK Proffit A, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK Ramshaw J, Pharmacy department, Cambridge University hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK Richardson D, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK Sadek A-R, Department of Neurosurgery, Barking Havering Redbridge University Trust, Romford, UK Sheehan K, Department of Bone and Joint Health, Blizzard Institute, Queen Mary University of London Sheppard F, Department of emergency medicine, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, UK Singh N, Department of Neurosurgery, St George’s Hospital, London, UK Skitterall C, Pharmacy Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK Smit C, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Smith M, Department of Emergency Medicine, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK Sturley R, Department of Geriatric Medicine, St George’s, University of London, London, UK Touzet AY, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Uprichard J, Department of Haematology, St George’s Hospital, London, UK Watson M, Department of Clinical neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Wilson M, Department of neurosurgery, Imperial College Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK Yeardley V, Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK ## Other acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Ms A Mantkelow and Dr C Phillips for their help in organising and running the in-person consensus meeting in November 2023. ## Disclosure statement WT has received speaker’s fees or sat on advisory boards for: Alexion, Portola, Sobi, Pfizer, Bayer, NovoNordisk, Ablynx, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, and Sanofi. PH is supported by Homerton College and the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute). THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation, an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. NRE is supported by a Stroke Association Senior Clinical Lectureship [SA-SCL-MED-22\100006]. JB reports consulting fees with Synchron. VFJN is supported by a NIHR Rosetrees Trust Advanced Fellowship NIHR302544, which is funded in partnership by the NIHR and Rosetrees Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Rosetrees Trust or the Department of Health and Social Care. TB is funded by the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury using UK international development funding from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK government. AJJ is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HealthTech Research Centre in Brain Injury based at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The views are those of the authors and not neces- sarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. ODM is supported by an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship. KS receives funding from UKRI, NIHR and the Royal Osteoporosis Society for research not related to the current work. JU declares speaker fees and funding from: Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Octapharma. DKM is supported by the TBI-REPORTER Project, which is supported by a multi-funder consortium consisting of: UK Research and Innovation; National institute for Health and Care Research; UK Department of Health and Social Care; UK Ministry of Defence, and Alzheimer’s Research UK AA is supported by the THIS Institute: THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation (Grant/Award Number: RHZF/001 - RG88620), an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. JPC is supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. IM holds the position of Director of Centre for Research & Improvement, Royal College of Anaesthetists. IM is supported by Grant funding from NIHR and charities for research into perioperative care of older people. AK has been previously supported by NIHR (Dex-CSDH trial). FE is a Topic Adviser for NG 232. ## Visual abstract ![Figure2](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/F2.medium.gif) [Figure2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312047/F2) ## Acknowledgements * Received August 19, 2024. * Revision received August 19, 2024. * Accepted August 20, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. [1].Edlmann E, Giorgi-Coll S, Whitfield PC, Carpenter KLH, Hutchinson PJ. Pathophysiology of chronic subdural haematoma: Inflammation, angiogenesis and implications for pharmacotherapy. J Neuroinflammation. 2017;14(1):1–13. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12974-017-0859-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28388927&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 2. [2].Brennan PM, Kolias AG, Joannides AJ, Shapey J, Marcus HJ, Gregson BA, et al. The management and outcome for patients with chronic subdural hematoma: a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study in the United Kingdom. J Neurosurg. 2016;127(4):732–739. 3. [3].Sastry RA, Pertsch N, Tang O, Shao B, Toms SA, Weil RJ. Frailty and Outcomes after Craniotomy or Craniectomy for Atraumatic Chronic Subdural Hematoma. World Neurosurg. 2021;145:e242–e251. 4. [4].Stubbs DJ, Davies BM, Bashford T, Joannides AJ, Hutchinson PJ, Menon DK, et al. Identification of factors associated with morbidity and postoperative length of stay in surgically managed chronic subdural haematoma using electronic health records: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e037385. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvNi9lMDM3Mzg1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMjAvMjAyNC4wOC4xOS4yNDMxMjA0Ny5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 5. [5].Edlmann E, Whitfield P, Kolias AG, Hutchinson PJ. Pathogenesis of chronic subdural haematoma: a cohort evidencing de novo and transformational origins. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(18):2580–2589. 6. [6].Dumont TM, Rughani AI, Goeckes T, Tranmer BI. Chronic subdural hematoma: A sentinel health event. World Neurosurg. 2013;80(6):889–892. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.wneu.2012.06.026&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 7. [7].Shapey J, Glancz LJ, Brennan PM. Chronic Subdural Haematoma in the Elderly: Is It Time for a New Paradigm in Management? Current Geriatrics Reports. 2016;5:71–77. 8. [8].Stubbs DJ, Vivian ME, Davies BM, Ercole A, Burnstein R, Joannides AJ. Incidence of chronic subdural haematoma: a single-centre exploration of the effects of an ageing population with a review of the literature. Acta Neurochir. 2021;163(9):2629–2637. 9. [9].Neifert SN, Chaman EK, Hardigan T, Ladner TR, Feng R, Caridi JM, et al. Increases in Subdural Hematoma with an Aging Population-the Future of American Cerebrovascular Disease. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e166–e174. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 10. [10].Stubbs DJ, Davies BM, Menon DK. Chronic subdural haematoma: the role of perioperative medicine in a common form of reversible brain injury. Anaesthesia. 2022;77:21–33.riche 11. [11].Stubbs DJ, Davies B, Hutchinson P, Menon DK, Improving Care in Elderly Neurosurgery Initiative (ICENI). Challenges and opportunities in the care of chronic subdural haematoma: perspectives from a multi-disciplinary working group on the need for change. Br J Neurosurg. 2022;36(5):600–608. 12. [12].Society of British Neurosurgeons. Neurosurgical Units. [https://www.sbns.org.uk/index.php/neurosurgical-units/](https://www.sbns.org.uk/index.php/neurosurgical-units/). Accessed March 22, 2021 13. [13].Stubbs DJ, Khanna S, Davies BM, Vivian ME, Bashford T, Adatia K, et al. Challenges and patient outcomes in chronic subdural haematoma at the level of a regional care system A multi-centre, mixed-methods study from the East of England. Age Ageing. 2024;53(4). doi:10.1093/ageing/afae076 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ageing/afae076&link_type=DOI) 14. [14].Jones K, Davies BM, Stubbs DJ et al. Can compliment and complaint data inform the care of individuals with chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH)? BMJ Open Quality. 2021;10(3):e001246. 15. [15].The Royal College of Anaesthetists. Guidelines for the Provision of Anaesthetic Services 2024. The Royal College of Anaesthetists. [https://www.rcoa.ac.uk/safety-standards-quality/guidance-resources/guidelines-provision-anaesthetic-services](https://www.rcoa.ac.uk/safety-standards-quality/guidance-resources/guidelines-provision-anaesthetic-services). Accessed April 3, 2024 16. [16].Frailty Guideline Working Group. Perioperative Care of People Living with Frailty. Centre for Perioperative Care; 2021. [https://www.cpoc.org.uk/sites/cpoc/files/documents/2021-09/CPOC-BGS-Frailty-Guideline-2021.pdf](https://www.cpoc.org.uk/sites/cpoc/files/documents/2021-09/CPOC-BGS-Frailty-Guideline-2021.pdf). Accessed October 8, 2021 17. [17].Bullock MR, Chesnut R, Ghajar J, Gordon D, Hartl R, Newell DW, et al. Surgical Management of Acute Subdural Hematomas. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(Supplement):S2–S16 - S2-S24. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/01.NEU.0000210361.83548]&link_type=DOI) 18. [18].Stubbs DJ, Davies BM, Dixon-Woods M, Bashford TH, Braude P, Bulters D, et al. Protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline for the care of patients with chronic subdural haematoma. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8:390. 19. [19].National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual. Published October 15, 2020. [https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction#key-principles-for-developing-guidelines](https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction#key-principles-for-developing-guidelines). Accessed August 16, 2021 20. [20].The AGREE Next Steps Consortium. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II Instrument.; 2017. [https://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument-2009-Update-2017.pdf](https://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument-2009-Update-2017.pdf). Accessed August 16, 2021 21. [21].Brannigan JFM, Gillespie CS, Adegboyega G, Watson M, Lee KS, Mazzoleni A, et al. Impact of antithrombotic agents on outcomes in patients requiring surgery for chronic subdural haematoma: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Br J Neurosurg. Published online April 8, 2024:1–8. 22. [22].Adegboyega G, Gillespie CS, Watson M, Lee KS, Brannigan J, Mazzoleni A, et al. Seniority of surgeon in CSDH Recurrence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. Published online June 18, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.06.071 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.wneu.2024.06.071&link_type=DOI) 23. [23].Gillespie CS, Fung KW, Alam AM, Yanez Touzet A, Dhesi J, Edlmann E, et al. How does research activity align with research need in chronic subdural haematoma: a gap analysis of systematic reviews with end-user selected knowledge gaps. Acta Neurochir. Published online May 30, 2023:1–12. 24. [24].National institute for health and care excellence (NIC). 9 Developing and wording guideline recommendations | The guidelines manual | Guidance | NICE. [https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/developing-and-wording-guideline-recommendations](https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/developing-and-wording-guideline-recommendations). Accessed April 5, 2024 25. [25].Nathanson MH, Andrzejowski J, Dinsmore J, Eynon CA, Ferguson K, Hooper T, et al. Guidelines for safe transfer of the brain-injured patient: trauma and stroke, 2019: Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists and the Neuro Anaesthesia and Critical Care Society. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(2):234–246. 26. [26].National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Recommendations | Head injury: assessment and early management | Guidance | NICE. NICE Head injury NG232. [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng232/chapter/Recommendations](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng232/chapter/Recommendations). Accessed April 3, 2024 27. [27].Klein AA, Meek T, Allcock E, Cook TM, Mincher N, Morris C, et al. Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2021: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(9):1212–1223. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 28. [28].Santarius T, Kirkpatrick PJ, Ganesan D, Chia HL, Jalloh I, Smielewski P, et al. Use of drains versus no drains after burr-hole evacuation of chronic subdural haematoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1067- 1073. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61115-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19782872&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 29. [29].Aljabali A, Sharkawy AM, Jaradat B, Serag I, Al-Dardery NM, Abdelhady M, et al. Drainage versus no drainage after burr-hole evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1961 patients. Neurosurg Rev. 2023;46(1):251. 30. [30].Qiu Y, Xie M, Duan A, Yin Z, Wang M, Chen X, et al. Comparison of different surgical techniques for chronic subdural hematoma: a network meta- analysis. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1183428. 31. [31].Hutchinson PJ, Edlmann E, Bulters D, Zolnourian A, Holton P, Suttner N, et al. Trial of Dexamethasone for Chronic Subdural Hematoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):2616–2627. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 32. [32].Miah IP, Holl DC, Blaauw J, Lingsma HF, den Hertog HM, Jacobs B, et al. Dexamethasone versus Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(24):2230–2240. 33. [33].Edlmann E, Holl DC, Lingsma HF, Bartek J Jr, Bartley A, Duerinck J, et al. Systematic review of current randomised control trials in chronic subdural haematoma and proposal for an international collaborative approach. Acta Neurochir . 2020;162(4):763–776. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00701-020-04218-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32025806&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 34. [34].Rudy RF, Catapano JS, Jadhav AP, Albuquerque FC, Ducruet AF. Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization to Treat Chronic Subdural Hematoma. Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology. 2023;3(1):e000490. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1161/SVIN.122.000490&link_type=DOI) 35. [35].National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Middle meningeal artery embolisation for chronic subdural haematomas. Published December 14, 2023. [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg779/chapter/1-Recommendations](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg779/chapter/1-Recommendations). Accessed March 21, 2024 36. [36].Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, Ramasamy A, Malinowski J, Ginex P, et al. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):50. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F20%2F2024.08.19.24312047.atom) 37. [37].Help establish the content of a guideline for the care of chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH). Thiscovery. [https://www.thiscovery.org/project/guideline-csdh-care](https://www.thiscovery.org/project/guideline-csdh-care). Accessed May 3, 2024 38. [38].Royal College of Physicians. The National Hip Fracture Database. Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Program (FFFAP). [https://www.nhfd.co.uk/](https://www.nhfd.co.uk/). Accessed October 25, 2022