Preliminary results of randomized controlled study on decompressive craniectomy in treatment of malignant middle cerebral artery stroke

Background and Objective. Studies on decompressive craniectomy (DCE) after a malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke in selected population show an increased probability of survival without increasing the number of very severely disabled. Cerebral infarct volume (CIV) as a triage criterion for performing surgery has not been discussed in literature. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of CIV and initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHHS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores as possible triage criteria in the surgical treatment of patients with " malignant" MCA stroke. Material and Methods. According to the study protocol, 28 patients with a malignant MCA stroke were included and analyzed prospectively. The patients were randomly divided either into the DCE plus best medical treatment (BMT) group or BMT alone group. CIV and NIHHSand GCS scores were measured at time of enrollment in every case. Clinical outcome was evaluated 1 year after the treatment. Results. Six patients survived: 5 in the DCE group (none of them was older than 60 years) and 1 in the BMT group (P=0.03/0.06).Among survivors, none had a cerebral infarct volume of more than 390 cm3 (P=0.05). Allsurvivors inthe DCE group had favorable outcomes. There was no significant difference inthe NIHSS and GCS scores between the groups and survivors/nonsurvivors (P>0.05). Conclusions. Decompressive surgery in the selected patients is likely to increase the probability of survival with a favorable outcome without increasing the number of severely disabled survivors. Patients with CIV of more than 390 cm3 may be bad candidates for DCE, and the prognosis is likely to be bad regardless the treatment strategy. The initial NIHHS and GCS scores did not prove any prognostic value in outcome.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Health care utilization and outcomes in older adults after Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI study

Introduction The incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is increasingly common in older adults aged ≥65 years, forming a growing public health problem. However, older adults are underrepresented in TBI research. Therefore, we aimed to provide an overview of health-care utilization, and of six-month outcomes after TBI and their determinants in older adults who sustained a TBI. Methods We used data from the prospective multi-center Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. In-hospital and post-hospital health care utilization and outcomes were described for patients aged ≥65 years. Ordinal and linear regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mental health symptoms six-months post-injury. Results Of 1254 older patients, 45% were admitted to an ICU with a mean length of stay of 9 days. Nearly 30% of the patients received inpatient rehabilitation. In total, 554/1254 older patients completed the six-month follow-up questionnaires. The mortality rate was 9% after mild and 60% after moderate/severe TBI, and full recovery based on GOSE was reported for 44% of patients after mild and 6% after moderate/severe TBI. Higher age and increased injury severity were primarily associated with functional impairment, while pre-injury systemic disease, psychiatric conditions and lower educational level were associated with functional impairment, lower generic and disease-specific HRQoL and mental health symptoms. Conclusion The rate of impairment and disability following TBI in older adults is substantial, and poorer outcomes across domains are associated with worse preinjury health. Nonetheless, a considerable number of patients fully or partially returns to their preinjury functioning. There should not be pessimism about outcomes in older adults who survive.publishedVersio

Prognostic Models for Global Functional Outcome and Post-Concussion Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study

After mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), a substantial proportion of individuals do not fully recover on the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or experience persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). We aimed to develop prognostic models for the GOSE and PPCS at 6 months after mTBI and to assess the prognostic value of different categories of predictors (clinical variables; questionnaires; computed tomography [CT]; blood biomarkers). From the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study, we included participants aged 16 or older with Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) 13-15. We used ordinal logistic regression to model the relationship between predictors and the GOSE, and linear regression to model the relationship between predictors and the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) total score. First, we studied a pre-specified Core model. Next, we extended the Core model with other clinical and sociodemographic variables available at presentation (Clinical model). The Clinical model was then extended with variables assessed before discharge from hospital: early post-concussion symptoms, CT variables, biomarkers, or all three categories (extended models). In a subset of patients mostly discharged home from the emergency department, the Clinical model was extended with 2-3–week post-concussion and mental health symptoms. Predictors were selected based on Akaike's Information Criterion. Performance of ordinal models was expressed as a concordance index (C) and performance of linear models as proportion of variance explained (R2). Bootstrap validation was used to correct for optimism. We included 2376 mTBI patients with 6-month GOSE and 1605 patients with 6-month RPQ. The Core and Clinical models for GOSE showed moderate discrimination (C = 0.68 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.70 and C = 0.70[0.69 to 0.71], respectively) and injury severity was the strongest predictor. The extended models had better discriminative ability (C = 0.71[0.69 to 0.72] with early symptoms; 0.71[0.70 to 0.72] with CT variables or with blood biomarkers; 0.72[0.71 to 0.73] with all three categories). The performance of models for RPQ was modest (R2 = 4% Core; R2 = 9% Clinical), and extensions with early symptoms increased the R2 to 12%. The 2-3-week models had better performance for both outcomes in the subset of participants with these symptoms measured (C = 0.74 [0.71 to 0.78] vs. C = 0.63[0.61 to 0.67] for GOSE; R2 = 37% vs. 6% for RPQ). In conclusion, the models based on variables available before discharge have moderate performance for the prediction of GOSE and poor performance for the prediction of PPCS. Symptoms assessed at 2-3 weeks are required for better predictive ability of both outcomes. The performance of the proposed models should be examined in independent cohorts.publishedVersio

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

Measurement invariance of six language versions of the post-traumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 in civilians after traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is frequently associated with neuropsychiatric impairments such as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which can be screened using self-report instruments such as the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). The current study aims to inspect the factorial validity and cross-linguistic equivalence of the PCL-5 in individuals after TBI with differential severity. Data for six language groups (n ≥ 200; Dutch, English, Finnish, Italian, Norwegian, Spanish) were extracted from the CENTER-TBI study database. Factorial validity of PTSD was evaluated using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and compared between four concurrent structural models. A multi-group CFA approach was utilized to investigate the measurement invariance (MI) of the PCL-5 across languages. All structural models showed satisfactory goodness-of-fit with small between-model variation. The original DSM-5 model for PTSD provided solid evidence of MI across the language groups. The current study underlines the validity of the clinical DSM-5 conceptualization of PTSD and demonstrates the comparability of PCL-5 symptom scores between language versions in individuals after TBI. Future studies should apply MI methods to other sociodemographic (e.g., age, gender) and injury-related (e.g., TBI severity) characteristics to improve the monitoring and clinical care of individuals suffering from PTSD symptoms after TBI.publishedVersio

Imaging Findings in Acute Traumatic Brain Injury: a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Element-Based Pictorial Review and Analysis of Over 4000 Admission Brain Computed Tomography Scans from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study

publishedVersio

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

Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research

No abstract available

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