Outcomes after Complicated and Uncomplicated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury at Three- and Six-Months Post-Injury: Results from the CENTER-TBI Study

The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive examination of the relation of complicated and uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with multidimensional outcomes at three- and six-months after TBI. We analyzed data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) research project. Patients after mTBI (Glasgow Coma scale (GCS) score of 13–15) enrolled in the study were differentiated into two groups based on computed tomography (CT) findings: complicated mTBI (presence of any traumatic intracranial injury on first CT) and uncomplicated mTBI (absence of any traumatic intracranial injury on first CT). Multidimensional outcomes were assessed using seven instruments measuring generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (SF-36 and QOLIBRI), functional outcome (GOSE), and psycho-social domains including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (PCL-5), depression (PHQ-9), and anxiety (GAD-7). Data were analyzed using a multivariate repeated measures approach (MANOVA-RM), which inspected mTBI groups at three- and six-months post injury. Patients after complicated mTBI had significantly lower GOSE scores, reported lower physical and mental component summary scores based on the SF-36 version 2, and showed significantly lower HRQoL measured by QOLIBRI compared to those after uncomplicated mTBI. There was no difference between mTBI groups when looking at psychological outcomes, however, a slight improvement in PTSD symptoms and depression was observed for the entire sample from three to six months. Patients after complicated mTBI reported lower generic and disease specific HRQoL and worse functional outcome compared to individuals after uncomplicated mTBI at three and six months. Both groups showed a tendency to improve from three to six months after TBI. The complicated mTBI group included more patients with an impaired long-term outcome than the uncomplicated group. Nevertheless, patients, clinicians, researchers, and decisions-makers in health care should take account of the short and long-term impact on outcome for patients after both uncomplicated and complicated mTBI

Prediction of Global Functional Outcome and Post-Concussive Symptoms after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: External Validation of Prognostic Models in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study

The majority of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are categorized as mild, according to a baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13-15. Prognostic models that were developed to predict functional outcome and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS) after mild TBI have rarely been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate models predicting 3-12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or PPCS in adu

Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring:a CENTER-TBI study

Objective: To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)–driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)–driven treatment. Methods: The CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with “center” as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome. Results: A total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36–1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34–2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs. Conclusion: We found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor–guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group. Protocol: The core study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).</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

Consensus-based care recommendations for adults with myotonic dystrophy type 1

Purpose of review Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a severe, progressive genetic disease that affects between 1 in 3,000 and 8,000 individuals globally. No evidence-based guideline exists to inform the care of these patients, and most do not have access to multidisciplinary care centers staffed by experienced professionals, creating a clinical care deficit. Recent findings The Myotonic Dystrophy Foundation (MDF) recruited 66 international clinicians experienced in DM1 patient care to develop consensus-based care recommendations. MDF created a 2-step methodology for the project using elements of the Single Text Procedure and the Nominal Group Technique. The process generated a 4-page Quick Reference Guide and a comprehensive, 55-page document that provides clinical care recommendations for 19 discrete body systems and/or care considerations. Summary The resulting recommendations are intended to help standardize and elevate care for this patient population and reduce variability in clinical trial and study environments. Described as “one of the more variable diseases found in medicine,” myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is an autosomal dominant, triplet-repeat expansion disorder that affects somewhere between 1:3,000 and 1:8,000 individuals worldwide.1 There is a modest association between increased repeat expansion and disease severity, as evidenced by the average age of onset and overall morbidity of the condition. An expansion of over 35 repeats typically indicates an unstable and expanding mutation. An expansion of 50 repeats or higher is consistent with a diagnosis of DM1. DM1 is a multisystem and heterogeneous disease characterized by distal weakness, atrophy, and myotonia, as well as symptoms in the heart, brain, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine, and respiratory systems. Symptoms may occur at any age. The severity of the condition varies widely among affected individuals, even among members of the same family. Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines do not currently exist to guide the treatment of DM1 patients. As a result, the international patient community reports varied levels of care and care quality, and difficulty accessing care adequate to manage their symptoms, unless they have access to multidisciplinary neuromuscular clinics. Consensus-based care recommendations can help standardize and improve the quality of care received by DM1 patients and assist clinicians who may not be familiar with the significant variability, range of symptoms, and severity of the disease. Care recommendations can also improve the landscape for clinical trial success by eliminating some of the inconsistencies in patient care to allow more accurate understanding of the benefit of potential therapies

Cognitive behavioural therapy with optional graded exercise therapy in patients with severe fatigue with myotonic dystrophy type 1:a multicentre, single-blind, randomised trial

Background: Myotonic dystrophy type 1 is the most common form of muscular dystrophy in adults and leads to severe fatigue, substantial physical functional impairment, and restricted social participation. In this study, we aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy optionally combined with graded exercise compared with standard care alone improved the health status of patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Methods: We did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised trial, at four neuromuscular referral centres with experience in treating patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 located in Paris (France), Munich (Germany), Nijmegen (Netherlands), and Newcastle (UK). Eligible participants were patients aged 18 years and older with a confirmed genetic diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy type 1, who were severely fatigued (ie, a score of ≥35 on the checklist-individual strength, subscale fatigue). We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care and optional graded exercise or standard care alone. Randomisation was done via a central web-based system, stratified by study site. Cognitive behavioural therapy focused on addressing reduced patient initiative, increasing physical activity, optimising social interaction, regulating sleep–wake patterns, coping with pain, and addressing beliefs about fatigue and myotonic dystrophy type 1. Cognitive behavioural therapy was delivered over a 10-month period in 10–14 sessions. A graded exercise module could be added to cognitive behavioural therapy in Nijmegen and Newcastle. The primary outcome was the 10-month change from baseline in scores on the DM1-Activ-c scale, a measure of capacity for activity and social participation (score range 0–100). Statistical analysis of the primary outcome included all participants for whom data were available, using mixed-effects linear regression models with baseline scores as a covariate. Safety data were presented as descriptives. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02118779. Findings: Between April 2, 2014, and May 29, 2015, we randomly assigned 255 patients to treatment: 128 to cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care and 127 to standard care alone. 33 (26%) of 128 assigned to cognitive behavioural therapy also received the graded exercise module. Follow-up continued until Oct 17, 2016. The DM1-Activ-c score increased from a mean (SD) of 61·22 (17·35) points at baseline to 63·92 (17·41) at month 10 in the cognitive behavioural therapy group (adjusted mean difference 1·53, 95% CI −0·14 to 3·20), and decreased from 63·00 (17·35) to 60·79 (18·49) in the standard care group (−2·02, −4·02 to −0·01), with a mean difference between groups of 3·27 points (95% CI 0·93 to 5·62, p=0·007). 244 adverse events occurred in 65 (51%) patients in the cognitive behavioural therapy group and 155 in 63 (50%) patients in the standard care alone group, the most common of which were falls (155 events in 40 [31%] patients in the cognitive behavioural therapy group and 71 in 33 [26%] patients in the standard care alone group). 24 serious adverse events were recorded in 19 (15%) patients in the cognitive behavioural therapy group and 23 in 15 (12%) patients in the standard care alone group, the most common of which were gastrointestinal and cardiac. Interpretation: Cognitive behavioural therapy increased the capacity for activity and social participation in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 at 10 months. With no curative treatment and few symptomatic treatments, cognitive behavioural therapy could be considered for use in severely fatigued patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Funding: The European Union Seventh Framework Programme

Quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury in European intensive care units

Background: The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe and to study its potential for quality measur

Changing care pathways and between-center practice variations in intensive care for traumatic brain injury across Europe

Purpose: To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers. Methods: This is a prospective observational multicenter study conducted across 18 countries in Europe and Israel. Admission characteristics, clinical data, and outcome were described at patient- and center levels. Between-center variation in the total ICU population was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR), with correction for case-mix and random variation between centers. Results: A total of 2138 patients were admitted to the ICU, with median age of 49 years; 36% of which were mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale; GCS 13–15). Within, 72 h 636 (30%) were discharged and 128 (6%) died. Early deaths and long-stay patients (> 72 h) had more severe injuries based on the GCS and neuroimaging characteristics, compared with short-stay patients. Long-stay patients received more monitoring and were treated at higher intensity, and experienced worse 6-month outcome compared to short-stay patients. Between-center variations were prominent in the proportion of short-stay patients (MOR = 2.3, p < 0.001), use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (MOR = 2.5, p < 0.001) and aggressive treatme

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

Use and impact of high intensity treatments in patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis

Abstract: Purpose: To study variation in, and clinical impact of high Therapy Intensity Level (TIL) treatments for elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) across European Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Methods: We studied high TIL treatments (metabolic suppression, hypothermia (< 35 °C), intensive hyperventilation (PaCO2 < 4 kPa), and secondary decompressive craniectomy) in patients receiving ICP monitoring in the ICU stratum of the CENTER-TBI study. A random effect logistic regression model was used to determine between-centre variation in their use. A propensity score-matched model was used to study the impact on outcome (6-months Glasgow Outcome Score-extended (GOSE)), whilst adjusting for case-mix severity, signs of brain herniation on imaging, and ICP. Results: 313 of 758 patients from 52 European centres (41%) received at least one high TIL treatment with significant variation between centres (median odds ratio = 2.26). Patients often transiently received high TIL therapies without escalation from lower tier treatments. 38% of patients with high TIL treatment had favourable outcomes (GOSE ≥ 5). The use of high TIL treatment was not significantly associated with worse outcome (285 matched pairs, OR 1.4, 95% CI [1.0–2.0]). However, a sensitivity analysis excluding high TIL treatments at day 1 or use of metabolic suppression at any day did reveal a statistically significant association with worse outcome. Conclusion: Substantial between-centre variation in use of high TIL treatments for TBI was found and treatment escalation to higher TIL treatments were often not preceded by more conventional lower TIL treatments. The significant association between high TIL treatments after day 1 and worse outcomes may reflect aggressive use or unmeasured confounders or inappropriate escalation strategies. Take home message: Substantial variation was found in the use of highly intensive ICP-lowering treatments across European ICUs and a stepwise escalation strategy from lower to higher intensity level therapy is often lacking. Further research is necessary to study the impact of high therapy intensity treatments. Trial registration: The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, registered 08/06/2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02210221?id=NCT02210221&draw=1&rank=1 and with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582)