Holden · American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2023 · narrative review · n=?

Hypertonic saline use in neurocritical care for treating cerebral edema: A review of optimal formulation, dosing, safety, administration and storage.

Cited 21 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review of clinical and operational practices without systematic review methodology.

PubMed 36480317 · doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxac368 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

The authors reviewed available literature to address practical operational and clinical questions regarding the use of hypertonic saline (HTS) for acute cerebral edema across neurocritical care conditions (acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and traumatic brain injury). The review evaluated optimal formulation, dosing methods, safety, peripheral versus central administration routes, laboratory monitoring, and institutional storage practices.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical data, effect sizes, or statistical metrics. Qualitatively, bolus doses of HTS are effective for acutely lowering elevated intracranial pressure. Adverse events are described as mostly mild and non-clinically significant if serum sodium and chloride concentrations are properly monitored. Peripheral intravenous administration was identified as safe under certain conditions when safeguards against phlebitis and extravasation are implemented. Storage in patient care areas is feasible despite regulatory constraints if appropriate institutional protocols are used.

Why it matters

While clinical guidelines recommend hypertonic saline over mannitol for cerebral edema in specific scenarios, operational standards for dosing, peripheral administration, and unit storage vary widely across hospitals. This article summarizes pragmatic guidance for neurocritical care teams and hospital pharmacies implementing HTS protocols.

Limits

The underlying evidence base is primarily retrospective and observational rather than derived from randomized controlled trials. As a narrative review, it lacks formal systematic search criteria, quality appraisal, or meta-analytic pooling. The abstract provides no quantitative figures, specific concentration cutoffs, or incidence rates for adverse events.

Cited by