Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

Effect of frailty on 6-month outcome after traumatic brain injury:a multicentre cohort study with external validation

Background: Frailty is known to be associated with poorer outcomes in individuals admitted to hospital for medical conditions requiring intensive care. However, little evidence is available for the effect of frailty on patients’ outcomes after traumatic brain injury. Many frailty indices have been validated for clinical practice and show good performance to predict clinical outcomes. However, each is specific to a particular clinical context. We aimed to develop a frailty index to predict 6-month outcomes in patients after a traumatic brain injury. Methods: A cumulative deficit approach was used to create a novel frailty index based on 30 items dealing with disease states, current medications, and laboratory values derived from data available from CENTER-TBI, a prospective, longitudinal observational study of patients with traumatic brain injury presenting within 24 h of injury and admitted to a ward or an intensive care unit at 65 centres in Europe between Dec 19, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017. From the individual cumulative CENTER-TBI frailty index (range 0–30), we obtained a standardised value (range 0–1), with high scores indicating higher levels of frailty. The effect of frailty on 6-month outcome evaluated with the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) was assessed through a proportional odds logistic model adjusted for known outcome predictors. An unfavourable outcome was defined as death or severe disability (GOSE score ≤4). External validation was performed on data from TRACK-TBI, a prospective observational study co-designed with CENTER-TBI, which enrolled patients with traumatic brain injury at 18 level I trauma centres in the USA from Feb 26, 2014, to July 27, 2018. CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02210221; TRACK-TBI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02119182. Findings: 2993 participants (median age was 51 years [IQR 30–67], 2058 [69%] were men) were included in this analysis. The overall median CENTER-TBI frailty index score was 0·07 (IQR 0·03–0·15), with a median score of 0·17 (0·08–0·27) in older adults (aged ≥65 years). The CENTER-TBI frailty index score was significantly associated with the probability of an increasingly unfavourable outcome (cumulative odds ratio [OR] 1·03, 95% CI 1·02–1·04; p&lt;0·0001), and the association was stronger for participants admitted to hospital wards (1·04, 1·03–1·06, p&lt;0·0001) compared with those admitted to the intensive care unit (1·02, 1·01–1·03 p&lt;0·0001). External validation of the CENTER-TBI frailty index in data from the TRACK-TBI (n=1667) cohort supported the robustness and reliability of these findings. The overall median TRACK-TBI frailty index score was 0·03 (IQR 0–0·10), with the frailty index score significantly associated with the risk of an increasingly unfavourable outcome in patients admitted to hospital wards (cumulative OR 1·05, 95% CI 1·03–1·08; p&lt;0·0001), but not in those admitted to the intensive care unit (1·01, 0·99–1·03; p=0·43). Interpretation: We developed and externally validated a frailty index specific to traumatic brain injury. Risk of unfavourable outcome was significantly increased in participants with a higher CENTER-TBI frailty index score, regardless of age. Frailty identification could help to individualise rehabilitation approaches aimed at mitigating effects of frailty in patients with traumatic brain injury. Funding: European Union, Hannelore Kohl Stiftung, OneMind, Integra LifeSciences Corporation, NeuroTrauma Sciences, NIH-NINDS–TRACK-TBI, US Department of Defense.</p

Biomarkers for Traumatic Brain Injury: Data Standards and Statistical Considerations

Recent biomarker innovations hold potential for transforming diagnosis, prognostic modeling, and precision therapeutic targeting of traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, many biomarkers, including brain imaging, genomics, and proteomics, involve vast quantities of high-throughput and high-content data. Management, curation, analysis, and evidence synthesis of these data are not trivial tasks. In this review, we discuss data management concepts and statistical and data sharing strategies when dealing with biomarker data in the context of TBI research. We propose that application of biomarkers involves three distinct steps-discovery, evaluation, and evidence synthesis. First, complex/big data has to be reduced to useful data elements at the stage of biomarker discovery. Second, inferential statistical approaches must be applied to these biomarker data elements for assessment of biomarker clinical utility and validity. Last, synthesis of relevant research is required to support practice guidelines and enable health decisions informed by the highest quality, up-to-date evidence available. We focus our discussion around recent experiences from the International Traumatic Brain Injury Research (InTBIR) initiative, with a specific focus on four major clinical projects (Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI, Collaborative Research on Acute Traumatic Brain Injury in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe, and Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial), which are currently enrolling subjects in North America and Europe. We discuss common data elements, data collection efforts, data-sharing opportunities, and challenges, as well as examine the statistical techniques required to realize successful adoption and use of biomarkers in the clinic as a foundation for precision medicine in TBI

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. CONCLUSION: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care.status: publishe

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study (vol 161, pg 453, 2019)

The collaborator names are inverted.status: publishe

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

BackgroundNeurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe.MethodsA survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP).ResultsThe survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25mmHg, 18% 30mmHg, and 17% 20mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions.ConclusionDespite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care