Science Progress 2023, Vol. 106(4) 1–12 © The Author(s) 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00368504231201298 journals.sagepub.com/home/sci

Medicine & Health Sciences — Original Manuscript SCIENCE PROGRESS
Clonidine safety and effectiveness in the management of suspected paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity post-traumatic brain injury: A retrospective cohort study
Abdulrahman I Alshaya1,2,3	,
Mohammed Aldhaeefi1,2,3,5 ,
Nada Alodhaiyan4, Maha Alqahtani4, Sarah Althewaibi4, Wala Alshahrani4, Khalid Al Sulaiman1,2,3,*	, Shmeylan
A. Al Harbi1,2,3, Ramesh Vishwakarma6 and Tariq Aldabbagh7
1Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3Department of Pharmaceutical Care Services, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4College of Pharmacy, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
5Department of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Howard University, Washington, USA 6Statistics Department, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium 7Department of Critical Care, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
*Current affiliation: Saudi Critical Care Pharmacy Research (SCAPE) Platform, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Corresponding author:
Abdulrahman I Alshaya, College of Pharmacy, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Email: alshayaab@gmail.com
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Abstract
Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. In addition, TBI may cause paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (PSH), which is associated with poor clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of clonidine in patients with TBI and suspected PSH.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study for critically ill patients with TBI with suspected PSH admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) from 1 May 2016 to 31 January 2020 at a tertiary academic medical center. Eligible patients were categorized based on clonidine use during their ICU stay (Clonidine group vs. Control group). The primary outcome was the improvement in functional outcomes during ICU stay, defined by a delta Glasgow Coma Score (GCS). Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay, heart rate variation, and 90-day mortality.
Results: A total of 2915 patients were screened, of which 169 were included. Based on multiple regression analysis, patients who received clonidine showed better improvement in functional outcomes by a higher mean delta GCS than patients who did not (Beta Coeff. 0.41; CI: 0.07 – 0.74; P = 0.02). In addition, the patient’s GCS upon ICU discharge and IV opioids requirement on day three were higher in the clonidine group than control (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.18 (0.03, 0.32); p = 0.02 and beta coefficient (95% CI): 1.38 (0.24, 2.52); p = 0.02, respectively). No statistical differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes after adjusting for confounders.
Conclusion: This study found that patients who received clonidine had better functional outcomes during their ICU stay, as shown by their delta GCS than those who did not. Other outcomes were similar between the groups. More data are needed to explore the role of clonidine in patients with TBI with suspected PSH.
Keywords
Clonidine, catecholamine surge, paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity, TBI, trauma
Introduction
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of mortality and morbidity world- wide.1,2 Particularly, trauma secondary to a motor vehicle accident, which may result in TBI or major trauma, is the second leading cause of death in Saudi Arabia after ischemic heart disease.3 TBI can be classified based on severity as mild, moderate, and severe based on multiple factors, including the loss or decreased level of consciousness and post- traumatic amnesia.1–3 Neurological deficits following TBI result from either primary or secondary injury.1,2,4 TBI may cause paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (PSH) and catecholamine surge, both of which are linked to poor outcomes.4,5 PSH is a clinical syndrome predominantly described after TBI, which is associated with transient increases in sympathetic activity.4 This condition is characterized by hyperthermia, tachycardia, tachypnea, and even motor features such as extensor/flexion posturing.4,5 The pathophysiology of PSH is not fully understood, but recent advances in clinical and diagnostic features have led to a broad clinical consensus, providing a foundation for systematic research on this disorder. It is a disease of exclusion and is defined as dysregulation in the autonomic function system and manifests as tachycardia and tachypnea.1,2,4,5 The incidence of PSH ranges between 8% and 33% after TBI and 6% after other brain injury causes. One study showed that the incidence of meeting criteria for PSH decreased from 24% at day 7 postinjury to 8% at 2 weeks, indicating that the timing of assessment has an impact on the difference in incidence.4
Early identification and cessation of PSH or catecholamine surges are crucial to stop further brain injuries.2 Multiple medications have been studied to reduce or inhibit PSH, including opioids, β-adrenergic blockers (BBs), benzodiazepines, neuromodulators, anesthetics, and alpha-2 agonists.1,2,6 Opioids are currently the mainstay therapy for PSH to aid in the resolution of hypertension, tachycardia, and allodynia.1,2,6 BBs have been shown to reduce mortality after TBI and may also be effective in PSH manage- ment.1,2,6,7 Benzodiazepines are mainly used to manage agitation, posturing, tachycardia, and hypertension.1,2,6 Neuromodulators (e.g. gabapentin and baclofen) effectively control hyperpyrexia and reduce spasticity and pain.1,2 Alpha-2 agonists reduce sympathetic outflow.1,2,6
Clonidine works as an alpha-2 agonist in the brainstem.8 This leads to a reduction of the sympathetic outflow.8 The most relevant safety concern with clonidine use is symptomatic sinus bradycardia and hypotension.9 The reduction of autonomic dysregulation and sympathetic outflow were associated with mortality reduction among patients with TBI when BBs were used.7,9–11 Clonidine has a similar effect and reduces both sympathetic outflow and agitation. This reduction is desirable to help mitigate sympathetic surges in patients with TBI.1,2,8 However, limited data exist to support the use of clonidine following TBI, and guidelines make no specific recommendation regarding clonidine use.2,12–14 Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of enteral clonidine use among adult patients with TBI with agitated behavior.
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study at the King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs (NGHA), a tertiary teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were obtained from electronic medical records (BESTCare) for all patients admitted with TBI for at least 24 hours from January 5, 2016 to January 1, 2020 with suspected PSH. Institutional review board approval for this study was granted by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC) (study number NRC21R/ 052/02) and waived the requirement for the informed consent form based on the study design. All adult patients (≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of TBI (both penetrating and blunt) and required an intensive care unit (ICU) admission were assessed for eligibility. We excluded patients who had documented TBI without suspected PSH requiring ICU admission and TBI patients who used clonidine to treat hypertension during their ICU stay. Eligible patients were categorized based on Clonidine use during their ICU stay (Clonidine vs. Control). All patients were followed until they were discharged or died during the in-hospital stay.
Demographic data collected at baseline included age, sex, body mass index, serum creatinine (µmol/L), creatinine clearance based on the Cockcroft-Gault equation, history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and TBI secondary complications including seizure, brain edema, and herniation. Patient data obtained upon admission included Glasgow coma score (GCS), temperature, hypothermia (core temperature < 36.5 °C), heart rate (HR), TBI-IMPACT score, pupil size, and reactivity, Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS), Charlson comorbidity index, and type of head injury and type of bleeding. It is common practice at our institution to prescribe clonidine for the management of catecholamine surges in patients with TBI; thus, all patients who were prescribed clonidine had been included unless clonidine was used to treat hypertension. Follow-up assessments upon ICU discharge included GCS, heart rate, temperature, and any documented infection during ICU admission. Pertinent medication information included sedatives, antiepileptic use, and intravenous opioid dose in morphine equivalence on day 3. The co-administration of beta-blockers and quetiapine during ICU admission was also documented. Patient functional status at discharge was classified into those who were discharged without assisted devices or those who were discharged in wheelchairs or walkers. The primary endpoint was the improvement in functional status defined by the delta GCS (GCS upon ICU discharge and admission). Secondary endpoints included delta heart rate (HR) (HR upon admission and ICU discharge), RASS score upon ICU discharge, temperature upon ICU discharge, intravenous opioid dose in morphine equivalence on day 3, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and 90-day mortality.
The baseline characteristics of the participants are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range (IQR)) for continuous variables and numbers (proportions) for categorical variables, as appropriate. Continuous data were analyzed using Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare categorical data, as appropriate, and statistical significance was defined asp ≤ 0.05. Normality assumptions were assessed for all numerical variables using statistical tests (i.e. Shapiro–Wilk test) and graphical representations (i.e. histograms and Q-Q plots). Model fit was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. For nominal outcome, multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and p-values based on patient age, GCS score upon admission, and beta-blocker use. A generalized linear model was used to calculate the beta coefficient (estimates) and p-value based on patient age, GCS upon admission, and beta-blocker use for numerical outcomes. The OR, or estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as appropriate. No imputation was performed for missing data, as the cohort of patients in our study was not derived from random selection. Statistical significance was setatP< 0.05, and Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 9.4 for all statistical analyses.
Results
Patient characteristics
A total of 2915 patients were screened, of which 169 were included. One hundred and four patients received clonidine during the ICU stay, as shown in Figure. 1. The median time for clonidine initiation was 7.0 (4.0, 9.0) days from ICU admission, with a median dose of 0.1 mg/dose (IQR: 0.1–0.2) given three times daily. Patients in the clonidine group continued on clonidine for a median of 18 days (IQR: 8.5–48), while 41.3% of them needed clo- nidine dose up-titration. Forty-five patients were discharged from the hospital with clonidine or other adjunctive agents, such as quetiapine, propranolol, or gabapentin. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the clonidine and control groups. Patients who received clonidine were younger, had major trauma combined with TBI, lower GCS upon admission, and

higher co-administration of dexmedetomidine, beta-blockers, and quetiapine as adjunctive therapy during ICU stay. Moreover, patients who did not receive clonidine (control) had higher phenytoin use as anti-seizure prophylaxis and lighter sedation within the first 24 h of ICU admission. The other variables were not significantly different between the two groups.
Outcomes
In the crude analysis, patients who received clonidine during ICU stay had a higher mean delta GCS score than patients who did not (6.2 vs. 3.1; p < 0.01). Data remained statistically significant after adjusting for confounding variables by implementing the negative binomial regression analysis (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.41 (0.07, 0.74), p = 0.02). In addition, the patient’s GCS upon ICU discharge and IV opioids requirement on day three were higher in the clonidine group than control after adjustment of predefined selected variables (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.18 (0.03, 0.32); p = 0.02 and beta coefficient (95% CI): 1.38 (0.24, 2.52); p = 0.02, respectively) (Table 2).
The delta heart rate was lower in the control group but did not reach statistical significance (52.8 vs. 58.9 beats per minute; p-value = 0.08). In addition, patients who did not receive clonidine had a lower median temperature upon ICU discharge or mortality, whichever occured first at crude analysis (36.9 vs. 37.1; p = 0.01). However, after adjusting for possible confounders in the regression analysis, the results were not statistically significant (Table 2).
Patients who received clonidine had a longer ICU and hospital LOS in the crude analysis; nevertheless, no statistically significant in the regression analysis was

Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Variables	Control (N = 65)	Clonidine (N= 104)	p-value	
Age (Years), mean (SD)	39.4 (18.47)	29.2 (11.10)	.0002b	
Gender—male, n (%)	60 (92.3)	101 (97.1)	.1522a	
Weight (kg), mean (SD)	76.3 (17.15)	73.4 (17.07)	.2649a	
Height (cm), mean (SD)	168.4 (7.90)	169.8 (6.85)	.3262a	
Serum creatinine using CG equation15	79.0 (61.80, 88.40)	71.0 (63.00, 84.00)	.2080c	
(mmol/l), median (Q1, Q3)		
GCS upon admission,16 median	4.0 (3.00, 14.00)	3.0 (3.00, 4.00)	.0001c	
(Q1, Q3)		
HR upon admission (BPM), median	90.0 (78.00, 107.00)	84.0 (70.50, 97.00)	.0539c	
(Q1, Q3)		
Temp upon admission, mean (SD)	36.8 (0.64)	37.0 (0.86)	.0684a	
Hypothermia upon admission, n (%)	2 (3.1)	6 (5.8)	.3309d	
TBI-IMPACT score,17 mean (SD)	33 (21)	29 (18)	.1727a	
Pupil size (mm), mean (SD)	3 (1.3)	3 (1.4)	.8065a	
At least one reactive pupil, n (%)	27 (42)	38 (37)	.5156d	
TBI secondary complications (Seizure,	20 (31)	55 (53)	.0048d	
brain edema, brain hernitation, or midline shift within 7 days), n (%)		
Type of injury	Control	Clonidine	p-value	
Isolated TBI, n (%)	12 (19)	2 (1.9)	.0554d	
Major trauma + TBI, n (%)	53(81.5)	101 (97.1)	<.0001d	
Type of bleeding based on CT		
Epidural, n (%)	13 (20)	18 (17)	.6599d	
Subarachnoid, n (%)	24 (37)	49 (47)	.1931d	
Intracerebral, n (%)	0 (0)	2 ()	–	
Sedation/sedatives		
RASS score upon admission,18 median	-3.0 (-4.00, -1.00)	-4.0 (-4.00, -3.00)	.0057b	
(Q1, Q3)		
Dexmedetomidine use, n (%)	25 (38.5)	72 (69.2)	<.0001c	
Midazolam use, n (%)	36 (55.4)	54 (51.9)	.6608c	
Propofol use, n (%)	34 (52.3)	56 (53.8)	.8454c	
Antiseizure prophylaxis		
Phenytoin, n (%)	31 (47.7)	25 (24.0)	.0015c	
Levetiracetam, n (%)	14 (21.5)	32 (30.8)	.1896c	
Other adjunctive therapy		
Beta-blockers use, n (%)	14 (21.5)	89 (85.6)	<.0001c	
Quetiapine, n (%)	14 (21.9)	68 (65.4)	<.0001c	
Infection during admission, n (%)
Charlson comorbidity index,19 Median	25 (38.5)	46 (44.2)	.4598c	
	0.0 (0.00, 1.00)	0.0 (0.00, 1.00)	.8175b	
(Q1, Q3)		
at-testis used to calculate the p-value.
bWilcoxon rank sum test is used to calculate the p-value.
cChi-square is used to calculate the p-value.
dFisher’s exact test is used to calculate p-value.

Table 2. Regression analysis for the outcomes.

Alshaya et al.

Number of outcomes/total number of patients
Outcomes	Control	Clonidine	p-valuea	beta coefficient (Estimates) (95%CI)	p-value	
Delta GCS, mean (SD) Ad	3.1 (4.38)	6.2 (3.61)	<.0l	0.41 (0.07, 0.74)	0.02	
Delta HR, mean (SD)d	52.8 (23.04)	58.9 (2 1.46)	.08	0.001 (-0.I8, 0.19)	.98	
GCS upon ICU discharge, median (QI, Q3)d	13.5 (7.00, 15.00)	10.0 (8.00, 14.00)	.02	0.18 (0.03, 0.32)	.02	
RASS score upon ICU discharge, median (QI, Q3)d	-1.0 (-5.00, 0.00)	-1.0 (-2.00, 0.00)	.07	0.71 (-0.75, 2.17)	.34	
Temp upon ICU discharge, median (Ql, Q3)d	36.9 (36.60, 37.25)	37.1 (36.80, 37.40)	.01	0.006 (-0.07, 0.08)	.86	
IV opioids dose in morphine equivalence at day 3, median (QI, Q3)d	20.0 (0.00, 110.50)	128.0 (56.00, 465.00)	.07	1.38 (0.24, 2.52)	.02	
Hospital LOS, median (QI, Q3)d	14.0 (8.00, 37.00)	59.5 (22.00, 127.00)	<.0l	0.50 (-0.0003, 1.01)	.05	
ICU LOS, median (Ql, Q3)d	7.0 (3.00, 15.00)	17.0 (12.00, 24.00)	<.0l	0.19 (-0.09, 0.48)	.19	
	Non-clonidine	Clonidine		Odds ratio (OR) (95%CI)	p-value	
90-day mortality, η (%) A°	10 (15.6)	I(1-0)	<.0lb	0.09 (0.009, 1.03)	.09	
Δ Denominator is the total number of patients.
at-test/Wilcoxon rank sum test is used to calculate the p-value.
Fisher exact test is used to calculate the p-value.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis is used to calculate Odds ratio and p-value based on patient’s age, GCS upon admission and beta-blockers use.
Generalized linear model is used to calculate beta coefficient (estimates) and p-value based on patient’s age, GCS upon admission and beta-blockers use.

Figure 2. Comparison between clonidine group vs. control group in mortality, ICU, and hospital stay and GCS improvement.

observed (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.19 (-0.09, 0.48), p = 0.19 and (95% CI): 0.50 (-0.0003, 1.01), p = 0.05, respectively) as shown in Table 2. Other outcomes such as 90-day mortality and functional status upon discharge were not statistically significant between the two groups after implementing the regression model (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.009, 1.03, p = 0.09 and OR 4.07; 95% CI 0.13, 124.8, p = 0.42, respectively) (Table 2). For functional status at discharge, forty-nine patients were discharged without wheelchairs/walkers, of whom 26 (53%) received clonidine (p = 0.19). Two patients who received clonidine were discharged with a wheelchair or walker.
Discussion
In this retrospective cohort study, we observed better functional outcomes as evidenced by a higher delta GCS in the clonidine group than in the control group during their ICU stay. However, no difference in mortality or ICU or hospital LOS was observed in our study after adjusting for major variables.
Clonidine works as an alpha-2 agonist in the brainstem, where it attenuates the catecholamine surge following brain injury by enhancing brainstem sympathetic suppression. It mitigates peripheral resistance, renal vascular resistance, heart rate, and blood pressure; consequently, the excessive sympathetic outflow decreases.20 Moreover, two of the main manifestations of PSH are tachycardia and hyperthermia. Our study results showed higher delta heart rate and temperature in the clonidine group; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, Megahed et al. found no statistically significant difference in the mean temperature between the two groups; however, the heart rate was significantly reduced in the interventional group.13
This result is in contrast to a study conducted by Megahed et al., who found no significant difference in GCS score after administering clonidine in addition to propranolol in PSH after severe TBI.13 In which longer ICU and hospital LOS were observed in the crude analysis but were not statistically significant in the regression analysis. Likewise, Barmparas et al. found that patients who received beta-blockers had a longer LOS than those who did not.10 Despite the increased co-administration of beta-blockers in the clo- nidine group compared with the non-clonidine group. Our study demonstrated similar clinical outcomes in hospital and ICU LOS.
Moreover, this study found no mortality benefit with clonidine administration, which is consistent with previously published data.13 It is unclear why previous studies demonstrated the potential mortality benefit of using beta-blockers while clonidine did not. A possible explanation could be the timing of clonidine initiation, the effect of beta-blocker co-administration, and treatment duration. Additionally, titration of clonidine is challenging because of the risk of inducing hypotension in the initiation phase and the imposed risk of reflexive hypertension in the discontinuation phase.8,20 It is worth mentioning that 70% of patients in the clonidine group in our study had received dexmedetomidine compared to 38% in the non-clonidine group, which can impact the results when considering dexmedetomidine withdrawal.21,22 These outcomes might cause clinicians to have clonidine reserved for refractory PSH cases that may not respond properly to beta-blockers alone.8,10–25 Patients in the non-clonidine groups received less IV opioids compared to the clonidine group, which can be related to the baseline risk. This can be further explored to assess the analgesic impact of clonidine in patients with TBI. Notably, we used mean and SD to report our delta GCS for the whole cohort, which was deemed to have a normal distribution. Thus, calculating delta GCS by using the difference in median GCS admission and discharge would result in erroneous numbers.
This study had several limitations. First, the retrospective method used in this study might have contributed to selection bias or confounders affecting the results despite the use of a regression model. Second, the bias size may be too small to detect statistical differences, which decreases the power of our study. Furthermore, our study was conducted in a single center, contributing to the small number of included patients and limited its generalizability. Moreover, the nature of PSH as a rare condition with no clear diagnostic criteria following TBI has contributed to the insufficient number of patients provided by a single center. These results should be validated using a more robust study design.
Conclusion
Our study found that patients who received clonidine had better functional outcomes during their ICU stay, as shown by their delta GCS than those who did not receive clonidine. Furthermore, it was observed that upon leaving the ICU, patients in the cloni- dine group had higher Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores and required more intravenous opioids on the third day compared to those in the control group (beta coefficient (95% CI): 0.18 (0.03, 0.32); p = 0.02 and beta coefficient (95% CI): 1.38 (0.24, 2.52); p = 0.02, respectively). However, other outcomes, such as in-hospital mortality, improvement in PSH symptoms, and ICU and hospital LOS, were not significantly different between the two groups. Further investigations are needed to identify the role of clonidine in PSH following TBI.
Acknowledgments
We want to thank all the investigators who participated in this project from the Saudi Critical Care Pharmacy Research (SCAPE) platform.
Authors’ contributions
All authors had substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, drafting and revising the content and approving the final version.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
IRB approval for this study was granted by IRB of KAIMRC with study number NRC21R/052/02
ORCID iDs
Abdulrahman I Alshaya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-5841
Mohammed Aldhaeefi	https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5985-9149
Khalid Al Sulaiman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5547-2043
References
1.		Galgano M, Toshkezi G, Qiu X, et al. Traumatic brain injury: current treatment strategies and future endeavors. Cell Transplant 2017; 26: 1118–1130.
2.		Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery 2017; 80: 6–15.
3.		Alghnam S , Alkelya M, Al-Bedah K, et al. Burden of traumatic injuries in Saudi Arabia: lessons from a major trauma registry in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med 2014; 34: 291–296.
4.		Meyfroidt G, Baguley IJ and Menon DK. Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity: the storm after acute brain injury. The Lancet Neurology 2017; 16: 721–729.
5.		Baguley IJ, Perkes IE, Fernandez-Or tega JF, et al. Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity after acquired brain injury: consensus on conceptual definition, nomenclature, and diagnostic criteria. J Neurotrauma 2014; 31: 1515–1520.
6.		Ding H, Liao L, Zheng X, et al. β-Blockers for traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2021; 90: 1077–1085.
7.		Esterov D and Greenwald BD. Autonomic dysfunction after mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Sci 2017; 7: E100.
8.		Mutzbauer TS, Obwegeser JA and Grätz KW. [Clonidine in oral medicine. Literature review and our experience]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2005; 115: 214–218.
9.		Zangbar B, Khalil M, Rhee P, et al. Metoprolol improves survival in severe traumatic brain injury independent of heart rate control. J Surg Res 2016; 200: 586–592.
10.		Ley EJ, Leonard SD, Barmparas G, et al. Beta blockers in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury: results from a multicenter, prospective, observational American association for the surgery of trauma study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2018; 84: 234–244.
11.		Cotton BA, Snodgrass KB, Fleming SB, et al. Beta-blocker exposure is associated with improved survival after severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care 2007; 62: 26–35.
12.		Genét GF, Bentzer P, Hansen MB, et al. Effects of propranolol and clonidine on brain edema, blood-brain barrier permeability, and endothelial glycocalyx disruption after fluid percussion brain injury in the rat. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2018; 84: 89–96.
13.		Megahed MM, Habib TN, Moqbel Z, et al. Role of propranolol and clonidine in sympathetic hyperactivity after severe traumatic brain injury. Clin NeurolNeurosci 2017; 1: 96–103.
14.		Patel MB, McKenna JW, Alvarez JM, et al. Decreasing adrenergic or sympathetic hyperactivity after severe traumatic brain injury using propranolol and clonidine (dash after TBI study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012; 13: 177.
15.		Cockcroft DW and Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976; 16: 31–41.
16.		Teasdale G and Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974; 2: 81–84.
17.		Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e165. discussion e165.
18.		Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond agitation-sedation scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1338– 1344.
19.		Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–383.
20.		Accessdata.fda.gov. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/017407s034lbl.pdf. (2022 Accessed 16 July 2023).
21.		Samuel S, Allison TA, Lee K, et al. Pharmacologic management of paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity after brain injury. J Neurosci Nurs 2016; 48: 82–89.
22.		Shald EA, Reeder J, Finnick M, et al. Pharmacological treatment for paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity. Crit Care Nurse 2020; 40: e9–e16.
23.		Zheng RZ, Lei ZQ, Yang RZ, et al. Identification and management of paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity after traumatic brain injury. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 81. Published 25 Feb 2020.
24.		Thomas A and Greenwald BD. Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity and clinical considerations for patients with acquired brain injuries: a narrative review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 98: 65–72.
25.		Scott RA and Rabinstein AA. Paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity. Semin Neurol 2020; 40: 485–491.
Author biographies
Abdulrahman I Alshaya is a Consultant Critical Care Clinical Pharmacy and Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the College of Pharmacy at KSAU-HS and MNGHA-CR.
Mohammed Aldhaeefi is a Clinical Assistant Professor and Critical Care Clinical Pharmacist at Howard University.
Nada Alodhaiyan is a Licensed Pharmacist.
Sara Althewaibi is a Licensed Pharmacist.
Wala Alshahrani is a Licensed Pharmacist.
Khalid Al Sulaiman is a Consultant Critical Care Clinical Pharmacy and Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the College of Pharmacy at KSAU-HS and MNGHA-CR.
Shmeylan Alharbi Consultant Critical Care Clinical Pharmacy and Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the College of Pharmacy at KSAU-HS and MNGHA-CR.
Ramesh Vishwakarma is a Senior Biostatician, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
Tarek Aldabbagh is a Consultant Critical Care Physician, Head of Trauma Critical Care Units at MNGHA-CR.