Family members' experience with in-hospital health care after severe traumatic brain injury : a national multicentre study.

Background Family member’s experience and satisfaction of health care in the acute care and in-patient rehabilitation are important indicators of the quality of health care services provided to patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective was to assess family members’ experience of the health care provided in-hospital to patients with severe TBI, to relate experiences to family member and patient demographics, patients’ function and rehabilitation pathways. Methods Prospective national multicentre study of 122 family members of patients with severe TBI. The family experience of care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI) was applied. Independent sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the means between 2 or more groups. Paired samples t-tests were used to investigate differences between experience in the acute and rehabilitation phases. Results Best family members` experience were found regarding information during the acute phase, poorest scores were related to discharge. A significantly better care experience was reported in the acute phase compared with the rehabilitation phase (p < 0.05). Worst family members` experience was related to information about consequences of the injury. Patient’s dependency level (p < 0.05) and transferral to non-specialized rehabilitation were related to a worse family members` experience (p < 0.01). Conclusions This study underscores the need of better information to family members of patients with severe TBI in the rehabilitation as well as the discharge phase. The results may be important to improve the services provided to family members and individuals with severe TBI

Extended Coagulation Profiling in Isolated Traumatic Brain Injury:A CENTER-TBI Analysis

Background: Trauma-induced coagulopathy in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains associated with high rates of complications, unfavorable outcomes, and mortality. The underlying mechanisms are largely unknown. Embedded in the prospective multinational Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study, coagulation profiles beyond standard conventional coagulation assays were assessed in patients with isolated TBI within the very early hours of injury. Methods: Results from blood samples (citrate/EDTA) obtained on hospital admission were matched with clinical and routine laboratory data of patients with TBI captured in the CENTER-TBI central database. To minimize confounding factors, patients with strictly isolated TBI (iTBI) (n = 88) were selected and stratified for coagulopathy by routine international normalized ratio (INR): (1) INR &lt; 1.2 and (2) INR ≥ 1.2. An INR &gt; 1.2 has been well adopted over time as a threshold to define trauma-related coagulopathy in general trauma populations. The following parameters were evaluated: quick’s value, activated partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen, thrombin time, antithrombin, coagulation factor activity of factors V, VIII, IX, and XIII, protein C and S, plasminogen, D-dimer, fibrinolysis-regulating parameters (thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, antiplasmin), thrombin generation, and fibrin monomers. Results: Patients with iTBI with INR ≥ 1.2 (n = 16) had a high incidence of progressive intracranial hemorrhage associated with increased mortality and unfavorable outcome compared with patients with INR &lt; 1.2 (n = 72). Activity of coagulation factors V, VIII, IX, and XIII dropped on average by 15–20% between the groups whereas protein C and S levels dropped by 20%. With an elevated INR, thrombin generation decreased, as reflected by lower peak height and endogenous thrombin potential (ETP), whereas the amount of fibrin monomers increased. Plasminogen activity significantly decreased from 89% in patients with INR &lt; 1.2 to 76% in patients with INR ≥ 1.2. Moreover, D-dimer levels significantly increased from a mean of 943 mg/L in patients with INR &lt; 1.2 to 1,301 mg/L in patients with INR ≥ 1.2. Conclusions: This more in-depth analysis beyond routine conventional coagulation assays suggests a counterbalanced regulation of coagulation and fibrinolysis in patients with iTBI with hemostatic abnormalities. We observed distinct patterns involving key pathways of the highly complex and dynamic coagulation system that offer windows of opportunity for further research. Whether the changes observed on factor levels may be relevant and explain the worse outcome or the more severe brain injuries by themselves remains speculative.</p

Rehabilitation and outcomes after complicated vs uncomplicated mild TBI:results from the CENTER-TBI study

Background: Despite existing guidelines for managing mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), evidence-based treatments are still scarce and large-scale studies on the provision and impact of specific rehabilitation services are needed. This study aimed to describe the provision of rehabilitation to patients after complicated and uncomplicated mTBI and investigate factors associated with functional outcome, symptom burden, and TBI-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) up to six months after injury. Methods: Patients (n = 1379) with mTBI from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study who reported whether they received rehabilitation services during the first six months post-injury and who participated in outcome assessments were included. Functional outcome was measured with the Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE), symptom burden with the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), and HRQOL with the Quality of Life after Brain Injury – Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS). We examined whether transition of care (TOC) pathways, receiving rehabilitation services, sociodemographic (incl. geographic), premorbid, and injury-related factors were associated with outcomes using regression models. For easy comparison, we estimated ordinal regression models for all outcomes where the scores were classified based on quantiles. Results: Overall, 43% of patients with complicated and 20% with uncomplicated mTBI reported receiving rehabilitation services, primarily in physical and cognitive domains. Patients with complicated mTBI had lower functional level, higher symptom burden, and lower HRQOL compared to uncomplicated mTBI. Rehabilitation services at three or six months and a higher number of TOC were associated with unfavorable outcomes in all models, in addition to pre-morbid psychiatric problems. Being male and having more than 13 years of education was associated with more favorable outcomes. Sustaining major trauma was associated with unfavorable GOSE outcome, whereas living in Southern and Eastern European regions was associated with lower HRQOL. Conclusions: Patients with complicated mTBI reported more unfavorable outcomes and received rehabilitation services more frequently. Receiving rehabilitation services and higher number of care transitions were indicators of injury severity and associated with unfavorable outcomes. The findings should be interpreted carefully and validated in future studies as we applied a novel analytic approach. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02210221.</p

The burden of traumatic brain injury from low-energy falls among patients from 18 countries in the CENTER-TBI Registry: A comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global public health burden, where those injured by high-energy transfer (e.g., road traffic collisions) are assumed to have more severe injury and are prioritised by emergency medical service trauma triage tools. However recent studies suggest an increasing TBI disease burden in older people injured through low-energy falls. We aimed to assess the prevalence of low-energy falls among patients presenting to hospital with TBI, and to compare their characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes to TBI caused by high-energy trauma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a comparative cohort study utilising the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) Registry, which recorded patient demographics, injury, care pathway, and acute care outcome data in 56 acute trauma receiving hospitals across 18 countries (17 countries in Europe and Israel). Patients presenting with TBI and indications for computed tomography (CT) brain scan between 2014 to 2018 were purposively sampled. The main study outcomes were (i) the prevalence of low-energy falls causing TBI within the overall cohort and (ii) comparisons of TBI patients injured by low-energy falls to TBI patients injured by high-energy transfer-in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, care pathways, and hospital mortality. In total, 22,782 eligible patients were enrolled, and study outcomes were analysed for 21,681 TBI patients with known injury mechanism; 40% (95% CI 39% to 41%) (8,622/21,681) of patients with TBI were injured by low-energy falls. Compared to 13,059 patients injured by high-energy transfer (HE cohort), the those injured through low-energy falls (LE cohort) were older (LE cohort, median 74 [IQR 56 to 84] years, versus HE cohort, median 42 [IQR 25 to 60] years; p < 0.001), more often female (LE cohort, 50% [95% CI 48% to 51%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001), more frequently taking pre-injury anticoagulants or/and platelet aggregation inhibitors (LE cohort, 44% [95% CI 42% to 45%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 11% to 14%]; p < 0.001), and less often presenting with moderately or severely impaired conscious level (LE cohort, 7.8% [95% CI 5.6% to 9.8%], versus HE cohort, 10% [95% CI 8.7% to 12%]; p < 0.001), but had similar in-hospital mortality (LE cohort, 6.3% [95% CI 4.2% to 8.3%], versus HE cohort, 7.0% [95% CI 5.3% to 8.6%]; p = 0.83). The CT brain scan traumatic abnormality rate was 3% lower in the LE cohort (LE cohort, 29% [95% CI 27% to 31%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001); individuals in the LE cohort were 50% less likely to receive critical care (LE cohort, 12% [95% CI 9.5% to 13%], versus HE cohort, 24% [95% CI 23% to 26%]; p < 0.001) or emergency interventions (LE cohort, 7.5% [95% CI 5.4% to 9.5%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 12% to 15%]; p < 0.001) than patients injured by high-energy transfer. The purposive sampling strategy and censorship of patient outcomes beyond hospital discharge are the main study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls are an important component of the TBI disease burden and a distinct demographic cohort; further, our findings suggest that energy transfer may not predict intracranial injury or acute care mortality in patients with TBI presenting to hospital. This suggests that factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people. A specific focus to improve prevention and care for patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls is required.CENTER-TBI was supported by the European Union 7th Framework program (EC grant 602150), recipient A.I.R. Maas. Additional funding was obtained from the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany) - recipient A.I.R. Maas, from OneMind (USA) - recipient A.I.R. Maas and from Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA) - recipient A.I.R. Maas. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study

BACKGROUND: Current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is suboptimal, and management is based on weak evidence, with little attempt to personalize treatment. A need exists for new precision medicine and stratified management approaches that incorporate emerging technologies. OBJECTIVE: To improve characterization and classification of TBI and to identify best clinical care, using comparative effectiveness research approaches. METHODS: This multicenter, longitudinal, prospective, observational study in 22 countries across Europe and Israel will collect detailed data from 5400 consenting patients, presenting within 24 hours of injury, with a clinical diagnosis of TBI and an indication for computed tomography. Broader registry-level data collection in approximately 20 000 patients will assess generalizability. Cross sectional comprehensive outcome assessments, including quality of life and neuropsychological testing, will be performed at 6 months. Longitudinal assessments will continue up to 24 months post TBI in patient subsets. Advanced neuroimaging and genomic and biomarker data will be used to improve characterization, and analyses will include neuroinformatics approaches to address variations in process and clinical care. Results will be integrated with living systematic reviews in a process of knowledge transfer. The study initiation was from October to December 2014, and the recruitment period was for 18 to 24 months. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI should provide novel multidimensional approaches to TBI characterization and classification, evidence to support treatment recommendations, and benchmarks for quality of care. Data and sample repositories will ensure opportunities for legacy research. DISCUSSION: Comparative effectiveness research provides an alternative to reductionistic clinical trials in restricted patient populations by exploiting differences in biology, care, and outcome to support optimal personalized patient management

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified. Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Evaluation of the relationship between slow-waves of intracranial pressure, mean arterial pressure and brain tissue oxygen in TBI: a CENTER-TBI exploratory analysis

Abstract: Brain tissue oxygen (PbtO2) monitoring in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has demonstrated strong associations with global outcome. Additionally, PbtO2 signals have been used to derive indices thought to be associated with cerebrovascular reactivity in TBI. However, their true relationship to slow-wave vasogenic fluctuations associated with cerebral autoregulation remains unclear. The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between slow-wave fluctuations of intracranial pressure (ICP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and PbtO2 over time. Using the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) high resolution ICU sub-study cohort, we evaluated those patients with recorded high-frequency digital intra-parenchymal ICP and PbtO2 monitoring data of a minimum of 6 h in duration. Digital physiologic signals were processed for ICP, MAP, and PbtO2 slow-waves using a moving average filter to decimate the high-frequency signal. The first 5 days of recording were analyzed. The relationship between ICP, MAP and PbtO2 slow-waves over time were assessed using autoregressive integrative moving average (ARIMA) and vector autoregressive integrative moving average (VARIMA) modelling, as well as Granger causality testing. A total of 47 patients were included. The ARIMA structure of ICP and MAP were similar in time, where PbtO2 displayed different optimal structure. VARIMA modelling and IRF plots confirmed the strong directional relationship between MAP and ICP, demonstrating an ICP response to MAP impulse. PbtO2 slow-waves, however, failed to demonstrate a definite response to ICP and MAP slow-wave impulses. These results raise questions as to the utility of PbtO2 in the derivation of cerebrovascular reactivity measures in TBI. There is a reproducible relationship between slow-wave fluctuations of ICP and MAP, as demonstrated across various time-series analytic techniques. PbtO2 does not appear to reliably respond in time to slow-wave fluctuations in MAP, as demonstrated on various VARIMA models across all patients. These findings suggest that PbtO2 should not be utilized in the derivation of cerebrovascular reactivity metrics in TBI, as it does not appear to be responsive to changes in MAP in the slow-waves. These findings corroborate previous results regarding PbtO2 based cerebrovascular reactivity indices

Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure versus intracranial pressure for outcome association in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI validation study

Abstract: Background: Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure (wICP) has recently been suggested as a supplementary measure of intracranial pressure (ICP) in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a single-center study suggesting an association with mortality at 6 months. No multi-center studies exist to validate this relationship. The goal was to compare wICP to ICP for association with outcome in a multi-center TBI cohort. Methods: Using the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) high-resolution intensive care unit (ICU) cohort, we derived ICP and wICP (calculated as wICP = (1 − RAP) × ICP; where RAP is the compensatory reserve index derived from the moving correlation between pulse amplitude of ICP and ICP). Various univariate logistic regression models were created comparing ICP and wICP to dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12 months, based on Glasgow Outcome Score—Extended (GOSE) (alive/dead—GOSE ≥ 2/GOSE = 1; favorable/unfavorable—GOSE 5 to 8/GOSE 1 to 4, respectively). Models were compared using area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) and p values. Results: wICP displayed higher AUC compared to ICP on univariate regression for alive/dead outcome compared to mean ICP (AUC 0.712, 95% CI 0.615–0.810, p = 0.0002, and AUC 0.642, 95% CI 0.538–746, p < 0.0001, respectively; no significant difference on Delong’s test), and for favorable/unfavorable outcome (AUC 0.627, 95% CI 0.548–0.705, p = 0.015, and AUC 0.495, 95% CI 0.413–0.577, p = 0.059; significantly different using Delong’s test p = 0.002), with lower wICP values associated with improved outcomes (p < 0.05 for both). These relationships on univariate analysis held true even when comparing the wICP models with those containing both ICP and RAP integrated area under the curve over time (p < 0.05 for all via Delong’s test). Conclusions: Compensatory-reserve-weighted ICP displays superior outcome association for both alive/dead and favorable/unfavorable dichotomized outcomes in adult TBI, through univariate analysis. Lower wICP is associated with better global outcomes. The results of this study provide multi-center validation of those seen in a previous single-center study