150 years since the birth of Harvey Williams Cushing

  &nbsp

Editorial introduction: decision making, reasoning, context and perspective

This edition includes articles based on presentations to an international conference in March 2019 at the University of West London (UWL) in the United Kingdom, on the subject of “Shared Decision-Making, Person-Centred Care & The Values Agenda”—a conference organized by UWL's European Institute for Person Centred Health and Social Care, in collaboration with the European Society for Person Centred Healthcare and the Collaborating Centre for Valuesbased Practice at St. Catherine's College, Oxford, U

Effects of tranexamic acid on death, disability, vascular occlusive events and other morbidities in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (CRASH-3): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background Tranexamic acid reduces surgical bleeding and decreases mortality in patients with traumatic extracranial bleeding. Intracranial bleeding is common after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and can cause brain herniation and death. We aimed to assess the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with TBI. Methods This randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in 175 hospitals in 29 countries. Adults with TBI who were within 3 h of injury, had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 12 or lower or any intracranial bleeding on CT scan, and no major extracranial bleeding were eligible. The time window for eligibility was originally 8 h but in 2016 the protocol was changed to limit recruitment to patients within 3 h of injury. This change was made blind to the trial data, in response to external evidence suggesting that delayed treatment is unlikely to be effective. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive tranexamic acid (loading dose 1 g over 10 min then infusion of 1 g over 8 h) or matching placebo. Patients were assigned by selecting a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was head injury-related death in hospital within 28 days of injury in patients treated within 3 h of injury. We prespecified a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients with a GCS score of 3 and those with bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN15088122), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01402882), EudraCT (2011-003669-14), and the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR20121000441277). Results Between July 20, 2012, and Jan 31, 2019, we randomly allocated 12 737 patients with TBI to receive tranexamic acid (6406 [50·3%] or placebo [6331 [49·7%], of whom 9202 (72·2%) patients were treated within 3 h of injury. Among patients treated within 3 h of injury, the risk of head injury-related death was 18·5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 19·8% in the placebo group (855 vs 892 events; risk ratio [RR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·86-1·02]). In the prespecified sensitivity analysis that excluded patients with a GCS score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline, the risk of head injury-related death was 12·5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 14·0% in the placebo group (485 vs 525 events; RR 0·89 [95% CI 0·80-1·00]). The risk of head injury-related death reduced with tranexamic acid in patients with mild-to-moderate head injury (RR 0·78 [95% CI 0·64-0·95]) but not in patients with severe head injury (0·99 [95% CI 0·91-1·07]; p value for heterogeneity 0·030). Early treatment was more effective than was later treatment in patients with mild and moderate head injury (p=0·005) but time to treatment had no obvious effect in patients with severe head injury (p=0·73). The risk of vascular occlusive events was similar in the tranexamic acid and placebo groups (RR 0·98 (0·74-1·28). The risk of seizures was also similar between groups (1·09 [95% CI 0·90-1·33]). Interpretation Our results show that tranexamic acid is safe in patients with TBI and that treatment within 3 h of injury reduces head injury-related death. Patients should be treated as soon as possible after injury. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, JP Moulton Charitable Trust, Department of Health and Social Care, Department for International Development, Global Challenges Research Fund, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust (Joint Global Health Trials scheme)

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

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

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

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

Health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury : deriving value sets for the QOLIBRI-OS for Italy, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom

Purpose The Quality of Life after Brain Injury overall scale (QOLIBRI-OS) measures health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to derive value sets for the QOLIBRI-OS in three European countries, which will allow calculation of utility scores for TBI health states. Methods A QOLIBRI-OS value set was derived by using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and visual analogue scales (VAS) in general population samples from the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Italy. A three-stage procedure was used: (1) A selection of health states, covering the entire spectrum of severity, was defined; (2) General population samples performed the health state valuation task using a web-based survey with three VAS questions and an at random selection of sixteen DCEs; (3) DCEs were analysed using a conditional logistic regression and were then anchored on the VAS data. Utility scores for QOLIBRI-OS health states were generated resulting in estimates for all potential health states. Results The questionnaire was completed by 13,623 respondents. The biggest weight increase for all attributes is seen from "slightly" to "not at all satisfied", resulting in the largest impact on HRQoL. "Not at all satisfied with how brain is working" should receive the greatest weight in utility calculations in all three countries. Conclusion By transforming the QOLIBRI-OS into utility scores, we enabled the application in economic evaluations and in summary measures of population health, which may be used to inform decision-makers on the best interventions and strategies for TBI patients.Peer reviewe

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

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