Airfoil optimization by using the Manifold Mapping method

In this report it is investigated if the Manifold Mapping method can be used in airfoil optimization. Before the method can be implemented, a suitable airfoil parametrization must be chosen. Furthermore a coarse and fine model must be assigned. These models are the key to success for the Manifold Mapping method. If two models are chosen that are completely different from each other, the Manifold Mapping will not work properly. Furthermore, if two models are chosen that are very similar to each other, the benefit in reducing computational cost will be only marginal. In this report the Manifold Mapping method will be explained in detail and applied to airfoil design. The approach is validated by using a test case, which will also be explained in detail. Furthermore recommendations and extensions will be given in the last chapter

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators. METHODS: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool. RESULTS: The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%). CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future

Zürich Statement on Future Actions on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs).

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are man-made chemicals that contain at least one perfluoroalkyl moiety, [Formula: see text]. To date, over 4,000 unique PFASs have been used in technical applications and consumer products, and some of them have been detected globally in human and wildlife biomonitoring studies. Because of their extraordinary persistence, human and environmental exposure to PFASs will be a long-term source of concern. Some PFASs such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) have been investigated extensively and thus regulated, but for many other PFASs, knowledge about their current uses and hazards is still very limited or missing entirely. To address this problem and prepare an action plan for the assessment and management of PFASs in the coming years, a group of more than 50 international scientists and regulators held a two-day workshop in November, 2017. The group identified both the respective needs of and common goals shared by the scientific and the policy communities, made recommendations for cooperative actions, and outlined how the science-policy interface regarding PFASs can be strengthened using new approaches for assessing and managing highly persistent chemicals such as PFASs. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4158

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

Brain death and postmortem organ donation: Report of a questionnaire from the CENTER-TBI study

Background: We aimed to investigate the extent of the agreement on practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. Methods: Investigators from 67 Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study centers completed several questionnaires (response rate: 99%). Results: Regarding practices around brain death, we found agreement on the clinical evaluation (prerequisites and neurological assessment) for brain death determination (BDD) in 100% of the centers. However, ancillary tests were required for BDD in 64% of the centers. BDD for nondonor patients was deemed mandatory in 18% of the centers before withdrawing life-sustaining measures (LSM). Also, practices around postmortem organ donation varied. Organ donation after circulatory arrest was forbidden in 45% of the centers. When withdrawal of LSM was contemplated, in 67% of centers the patients with a ventricular drain in situ had this removed, either sometimes or all of the time. Conclusions: This study showed both agreement and some regional differences regarding practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. We hope our results help quantify and understand potential differences, and provide impetus for current dialogs toward further harmonization of practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation

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

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

Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: A survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI

Background: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI. Methods: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed based on literature and expert opinion, and pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) study. Results: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately ninety percent of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomography abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first- and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as having a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%). Conclusions: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with traumatic brain injury and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research