Remarks on the faunal evidence at the Merovingian site of Oegstgeest (Zuid Holland)

Roman Provinces, Middle Ages and Modern PeriodBioarchaeolog

Comparative Effectiveness of Mannitol Versus Hypertonic Saline in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury:A CENTER-TBI Study

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is one of the most important modifiable and immediate threats to critically ill patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Two hyperosmolar agents (HOAs), mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS), are routinely used in clinical practice to treat increased ICP. We aimed to assess whether a preference for mannitol, HTS, or their combined use translated into differences in outcome. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study is a prospective multi-center cohort study. For this study, patients with TBI, admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), treated with mannitol and/or HTS, and aged ≥16 years were included. Patients and centers were differentiated based on treatment preference with mannitol and/or HTS based on structured, data-driven criteria such as first administered HOA in the ICU. We assessed influence of center and patient characteristics in the choice of agent using adjusted multi-variate models. Further, we assessed the influence of HOA preference on outcome using adjusted ordinal and logistic regression models, and instrumental variable analyses. In total, 2056 patients were assessed. Of these, 502 (24%) patients received mannitol and/or HTS in the ICU. The first received HOA was HTS for 287 (57%) patients, mannitol for 149 (30%) patients, or both mannitol and HTS on the same day for 66 (13%) patients. Two unreactive pupils were more common in patients receiving both (13, 21%), compared with patients receiving HTS (40, 14%) or mannitol (22, 16%). Center, rather than patient characteristics, was independently associated with the preferred choice of HOA (p-value &lt;0.05). ICU mortality and 6-month outcome were similar between patients preferably treated with mannitol compared with HTS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.0, confidence interval [CI] = 0.4-2.2; OR = 0.9, CI = 0.5-1.6, respectively). Patients who received both also had a similar ICU mortality and 6-month outcome compared with patients receiving HTS (OR = 1.8, CI = 0.7-5.0; OR = 0.6, CI = 0.3-1.7, respectively). We found between-center variability regarding HOA preference. Moreover, we found that center is a more important driver of the choice of HOA than patient characteristics. However, our study indicates that this variability is an acceptable practice given absence of differences in outcomes associated with a specific HOA.</p

Ventricular drainage catheters versus intracranial parenchymal catheters for intracranial pressure monitoring-based management of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

traumatic brain injury (TBI), but different approaches to monitoring exist. The aim of this Abstract: Journal of Neurotrauma Page 4 of 41 Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is one of the mainstays in the treatment of severe systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness and complication rate of ventricular drainage (VD) versus intracranial parenchymal (IP) catheters to monitor and treat raised ICP in patients with TBI

Variation in guideline implementation and adherence regarding severe traumatic brain injury treatment: a CENTER-TBI survey study in Europe

Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence. As part of a prospective, observational, multi-center European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation. Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were ‘every patient is unique’ and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines. There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers

Intensive care admission criteria for traumatic brain injury patients across Europe.

Within a prospective, observational, multi-center cohort study 68 hospitals (of which 66 responded), mostly academic (n = 60, 91%) level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%) in 20 countries were asked to complete questionnaires regarding the "standard of care" for severe neurotrauma patients in their hospitals. From the questionnaire pertaining to ICU management, 12 questions related to admission criteria were selected for this analysis. The questionnaires were completed by 66 centers. The median number of TBI patients admitted to the ICU was 92 [interquartile range (IQR): 52-160] annually. Admission policy varied; in 45 (68%) centers, patients with a Glasgow Come Score (GCS) between 13 and 15 without CT abnormalities but with other risk factors would be admitted to the ICU while the rest indicated that they would not admit these patients routinely to the ICU. We found no association between ICU admission policy and the presence of a dedicated neuro ICU, the discipline in charge of rounds, the presence of step down beds or geographic location (North- Western Europe vs. South - Eastern Europe and Israel). Variation in admission policy, primarily of mild TBI patients to ICU exists, even among high-volume academic centers and seems to be largely independent of other center characteristics. The observed variation suggests a role for comparative effectiveness research to investigate the potential benefit and cost-effectiveness of a liberal versus more restrictive admission policies.EU FP7 gran

Delirium prediction in the intensive care unit: comparison of two delirium prediction models

Background: Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. Methods: This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. Results: In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of -2.73 (p < 0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n = 68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. Conclusions: While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h

Safety and efficacy of C1-inhibitor in traumatic brain injury (CIAO@TBI): study protocol for a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability across all ages. After the primary impact, the pathophysiologic process of secondary brain injury consists of a neuroinflammation response that critically leads to irreversible brain damage in the first days after the trauma. A key catalyst in this inflammatory process is the complement system. Inhibiting the complement system could therefore be a therapeutic target in TBI.Objective: To study the safety and efficacy of C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) compared to placebo in patients with TBI. By temporarily blocking the complement system, we hypothesize a decrease in the posttraumatic neuroinflammatory response resulting in a less unfavorable clinical outcome for TBI patients.Methods: CIAO@TBI is a multicenter, randomized, blinded, phase II placebo-controlled trial. Adult TBI patients with GCS < 13 requiring intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring will be randomized, using block randomization, within 12 h after trauma to one dose 6000 IU C1-INH or placebo. A total of 106 patients will be included, and follow-up will occur up to 12 months. The primary endpoints are (1) Therapy Intensity Level (TIL) Scale, (2) Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, and (3) complication rate during hospitalization. Outcomes will be determined by a trial nurse blinded for the treatment allocation. Analyses will be conducted in an intention-to-treat analysis.Discussion: We expect that C1-INH administration will be safe and potentially effective to improve clinical outcomes by reducing neuroinflammation in TBI patients.Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc

Variation in Blood Transfusion and Coagulation Management in Traumatic Brain Injury at the Intensive Care Unit: A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study.

Our aim was to describe current approaches and to quantify variability between European intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Therefore, we conducted a provider profiling survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The ICU Questionnaire was sent to 68 centers from 20 countries across Europe and Israel. For this study, we used ICU questions focused on 1) hemoglobin target level (Hb-TL), 2) coagulation management, and 3) deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis. Seventy-eight participants, mostly intensivists and neurosurgeons of 66 centers, completed the ICU questionnaire. For ICU-patients, half of the centers (N = 34; 52%) had a defined Hb-TL in their protocol. For patients with TBI, 26 centers (41%) indicated an Hb-TL between 70 and 90 g/L and 38 centers (59%) above 90 g/L. To treat trauma-related hemostatic abnormalities, the use of fresh frozen plasma (N = 48; 73%) or platelets (N = 34; 52%) was most often reported, followed by the supplementation of vitamin K (N = 26; 39%). Most centers reported using DVT prophylaxis with anticoagulants frequently or always (N = 62; 94%). In the absence of hemorrhagic brain lesions, 14 centers (21%) delayed DVT prophylaxis until 72 h after trauma. If hemorrhagic brain lesions were present, the number of centers delaying DVT prophylaxis for 72 h increased to 29 (46%). Overall, a lack of consensus exists between European ICUs on blood transfusion and coagulation management. The results provide a baseline for the CENTER-TBI study, and the large between-center variation indicates multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research