Blood-Based Protein Biomarkers for the Management of Traumatic Brain Injuries in Adults Presenting to Emergency Departments with Mild Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Accurate diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is critical to effective management and intervention, but can be challenging in patients with mild TBI. A substantial number of studies have reported the use of circulating biomarkers as signatures for TBI, capable of improving diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision making beyond current practice standards. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively and critically evaluate the existing body of evidence for the use of blood protein biomarkers (S100 calcium binding protein B [S100B], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], neuron specific enolase [NSE], ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 [UCH-L1]. tau, and neurofilament proteins) for diagnosis of intracranial lesions on CT following mild TBI. Effects of potential confounding factors and differential diagnostic performance of the included markers were explored. Further, appropriateness of study design, analysis, quality, and demonstration of clinical utility were assessed. Studies published up to October 2016 were identified through a MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) search. Following screening of the identified articles, 26 were selected as relevant. We found that measurement of S100B can help informed decision making in the emergency department, possibly reducing resource use; however, there is insufficient evidence that any of the other markers is ready for clinical application. Our work pointed out serious problems in the design, analysis, and reporting of many of the studies, and identified substantial heterogeneity and research gaps. These findings emphasize the importance of methodologically rigorous studies focused on a biomarker's intended use, and defining standardized, validated, and reproducible approaches. The living nature of this systematic review, which will summarize key updated infor

Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: Relations to severity, CT findings and care path in the CENTER-TBI study

BackgroundSerum biomarkers may inform and improve care in traumatic brain injury (TBI). We aimed to correlate serum biomarkers with clinical severity, care path and imaging abnormalities in TBI, and explore their incremental value over clinical characteristics in predicting computed tomographic (CT) abnormalities.MethodsWe analyzed six serum biomarkers (S100B, NSE, GFAP, UCH-L1, NFL and t-tau) obtained FindingsAll biomarkers scaled with clinical severity and care path (ER only, ward admission, or ICU), and with presence of CT abnormalities. GFAP achieved the highest discrimination for predicting CT abnormalities (AUC 0•89 [95%CI: 0•87–0•90]), with a 99% likelihood of better discriminating CT-positive patients than clinical characteristics used in contemporary decision rules. In patients with mild TBI, GFAP also showed incremental diagnostic value: discrimination increased from 0•84 [95%CI: 0•83–0•86] to 0•89 [95%CI: 0•87–0•90] when GFAP was included. Results were consistent across strata, and injury severity. Combinations of biomarkers did not improve discrimination compared to GFAP alone.InterpretationCurrently available biomarkers reflect injury severity, and serum GFAP, measured within 24 h after injury, outperforms clinical characteristics in predicting CT abnormalities. Our results support the further development of serum GFAP assays towards implementation in clinical practice, for which robust clinical assay platforms are required.FundingCENTER-TBI study was supported by the European Union 7th Framework program (EC grant 602150).</p

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

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 12 RAP) 7 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\u2014Extended (GOSE) (alive/dead\u2014GOSE 65 2/GOSE = 1; favorable/unfavorable\u2014GOSE 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\u20130.810, p = 0.0002, and AUC 0.642, 95% CI 0.538\u2013746, p &lt; 0.0001, respectively; no significant difference on Delong\u2019s test), and for favorable/unfavorable outcome (AUC 0.627, 95% CI 0.548\u20130.705, p = 0.015, and AUC 0.495, 95% CI 0.413\u20130.577, p = 0.059; significantly different using Delong\u2019s test p = 0.002), with lower wICP values associated with improved outcomes (p &lt; 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 &lt; 0.05 for all via Delong\u2019s 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

Univariate comparison of performance of different cerebrovascular reactivity indices for outcome association in adult TBI: a CENTER-TBI study

Background: Monitoring cerebrovascular reactivity in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been linked to global patient outcome. Three intra-cranial pressure (ICP)-derived indices have been described. It is unknown which index is superior for outcome association in TBI outside previous single-center evaluations. The goal of this study is to evaluate indices for 6- to 12-month outcome association using uniform data harvested in multiple centers. Methods: Using the prospectively collected data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study, the following indices of cerebrovascular reactivity were derived: PRx (correlation between ICP and mean arterial pressure (MAP)), PAx (correlation between pulse amplitude of ICP (AMP) and MAP), and RAC (correlation between AMP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP)). Univariate logistic regression models were created to assess the association between vascular reactivity indices with global dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12&nbsp;months, as assessed by Glasgow Outcome Score\u2013Extended (GOSE). Models were compared via area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and Delong\u2019s test. Results: Two separate patient groups from this cohort were assessed: the total population with available data (n = 204) and only those without decompressive craniectomy (n = 159), with identical results. PRx, PAx, and RAC perform similar in outcome association for both dichotomized outcomes, alive/dead and favorable/unfavorable, with RAC trending towards higher AUC values. There were statistically higher mean values for the index, % time above threshold, and hourly dose above threshold for each of PRx, PAx, and RAC in those patients with poor outcomes. Conclusions: PRx, PAx, and RAC appear similar in their associations with 6- to 12-month outcome in moderate/severe adult TBI, with RAC showing tendency to achieve stronger associations. Further work is required to determine the role for each of these cerebrovascular indices in monitoring of TBI patients

Primary versus early secondary referral to a specialized neurotrauma center in patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a CENTER TBI study.

BackgroundPrehospital care for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) varies with some emergency medical systems recommending direct transport of patients with moderate to severe TBI to hospitals with specialist neurotrauma care (SNCs). The aim of this study is to assess variation in levels of early secondary referral within European SNCs and to compare the outcomes of directly admitted and secondarily transferred patients.MethodsPatients with moderate and severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale ResultsA total of 1347 moderate/severe TBI patients from 53 SNCs in 18 European countries were included. Of these 1347 patients, 195 (14.5%) were admitted after early secondary referral. Secondarily referred moderate/severe TBI patients presented more often with a CT abnormality: mass lesion (52% vs. 34%), midline shift (54% vs. 36%) and acute subdural hematoma (77% vs. 65%). After adjusting for case-mix, there was a large European variation in early secondary referral, with a median OR of 1.69 between countries. Early secondary referral was not associated with functional outcome (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.69), nor with survival at discharge (1.05, 0.58-1.90).ConclusionsAcross Europe, substantial practice variation exists in the proportion of secondarily referred TBI patients at SNCs that is not explained by case mix. Within SNCs early secondary referral does not seem to impact functional outcome and survival after stabilisation in a non-specialised hospital. Future research should identify which patients with TBI truly benefit from direct transportation

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

Background The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.Peer reviewe

Tracheal intubation in traumatic brain injury: a multicentre prospective observational study

Background We aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity. Methods Data from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests. Results In the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower. Conclusion The benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting. Clinical trial registration NCT02210221

Predictors of Access to Rehabilitation in the Year Following Traumatic Brain Injury : A European Prospective and Multicenter Study

Background Although rehabilitation is beneficial for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI), a significant proportion of them do not receive adequate rehabilitation after acute care. Objective Therefore, the goal of this prospective and multicenter study was to investigate predictors of access to rehabilitation in the year following injury in patients with TBI. Methods Data from a large European study (CENTER-TBI), including TBIs of all severities between December 2014 and December 2017 were used (N = 4498 patients). Participants were dichotomized into those who had and those who did not have access to rehabilitation in the year following TBI. Potential predictors included sociodemographic factors, psychoactive substance use, preinjury medical history, injury-related factors, and factors related to medical care, complications, and discharge. Results In the year following traumatic injury, 31.4% of patients received rehabilitation services. Access to rehabilitation was positively and significantly predicted by female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.50), increased number of years of education completed (OR = 1.05), living in Northern (OR = 1.62; reference: Western Europe) or Southern Europe (OR = 1.74), lower prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR = 1.03), higher Injury Severity Score (OR = 1.01), intracranial (OR = 1.33) and extracranial (OR = 1.99) surgery, and extracranial complication (OR = 1.75). On contrast, significant negative predictors were lack of preinjury employment (OR = 0.80), living in Central and Eastern Europe (OR = 0.42), and admission to hospital ward (OR = 0.47; reference: admission to intensive care unit) or direct discharge from emergency room (OR = 0.24). Conclusions Based on these findings, there is an urgent need to implement national and international guidelines and strategies for access to rehabilitation after TBI.Peer reviewe