Hospitals with and without neurosurgery: a comparative study evaluating the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury

Background: We leveraged the data of the international CREACTIVE consortium to investigate whether the outcome of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in hospitals without on-site neurosurgical capabilities (no-NSH) would differ had the same patients been admitted to ICUs in hospitals with neurosurgical capabilities (NSH). Methods: The CREACTIVE observational study enrolled more than 8000 patients from 83 ICUs. Adult TBI patients admitted to no-NSH ICUs within 48 h of trauma were propensity-score matched 1:3 with patients admitted to NSH ICUs. The primary outcome was the 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E), while secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. Results: A total of 232 patients, less than 5% of the eligible cohort, were admitted to no-NSH ICUs. Each of them was matched to 3 NSH patients, leading to a study sample of 928 TBI patients where the no-NSH and NSH groups were well-balanced with respect to all of the variables included into the propensity score. Patients admitted to no-NSH ICUs experienced significantly higher ICU and in-hospital mortality. Compared to the matched NSH ICU admissions, their 6-month GOS-E scores showed a significantly higher prevalence of upper good recovery for cases with mild TBI and low expected mortality risk at admission, along with a progressively higher incidence of poor outcomes with increased TBI severity and mortality risk. Conclusions: In our study, centralization of TBI patients significantly impacted short- and long-term outcomes. For TBI patients admitted to no-NSH centers, our results suggest that the least critically ill can effectively be managed in centers without neurosurgical capabilities. Conversely, the most complex patients would benefit from being treated in high-volume, neuro-oriented ICUs

Intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute brain injury in the intensive care unit (SYNAPSE-ICU): an international, prospective observational cohort study

Background: The indications for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with acute brain injury and the effects of ICP on patients’ outcomes are uncertain. The aims of this study were to describe current ICP monitoring practises for patients with acute brain injury at centres around the world and to assess variations in indications for ICP monitoring and interventions, and their association with long-term patient outcomes. Methods: We did a prospective, observational cohort study at 146 intensive care units (ICUs) in 42 countries. We assessed for eligibility all patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the ICU with either acute brain injury due to primary haemorrhagic stroke (including intracranial haemorrhage or subarachnoid haemorrhage) or traumatic brain injury. We included patients with altered levels of consciousness at ICU admission or within the first 48 h after the brain injury, as defined by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) eye response score of 1 (no eye opening) and a GCS motor response score of at least 5 (not obeying commands). Patients not admitted to the ICU or with other forms of acute brain injury were excluded from the study. Between-centre differences in use of ICP monitoring were quantified by using the median odds ratio (MOR). We used the therapy intensity level (TIL) to quantify practice variations in ICP interventions. Primary endpoints were 6 month mortality and 6 month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score. A propensity score method with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to estimate the association between use of ICP monitoring and these 6 month outcomes, independently of measured baseline covariates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03257904. Findings: Between March 15, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 4776 patients were assessed for eligibility and 2395 patients were included in the study, including 1287 (54%) with traumatic brain injury, 587 (25%) with intracranial haemorrhage, and 521 (22%) with subarachnoid haemorrhage. The median age of patients was 55 years (IQR 39–69) and 1567 (65%) patients were male. Considerable variability was recorded in the use of ICP monitoring across centres (MOR 4·5, 95% CI 3·8–4·9 between two randomly selected centres for patients with similar covariates). 6 month mortality was lower in patients who had ICP monitoring (441/1318 [34%]) than in those who were not monitored (517/1049 [49%]; p<0·0001). ICP monitoring was associated with significantly lower 6 month mortality in patients with at least one unreactive pupil (hazard ratio [HR] 0·35, 95% CI 0·26–0·47; p<0·0001), and better neurological outcome at 6 months (odds ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·26–0·56; p=0·0025). Median TIL was higher in patients with ICP monitoring (9 [IQR 7–12]) than in those who were not monitored (5 [3–8]; p<0·0001) and an increment of one point in TIL was associated with a reduction in mortality (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·91–0·98; p=0·0011). Interpretation: The use of ICP monitoring and ICP management varies greatly across centres and countries. The use of ICP monitoring might be associated with a more intensive therapeutic approach and with lower 6-month mortality in more severe cases. Intracranial hypertension treatment guided by monitoring might be considered in severe cases due to the potential associated improvement in long-term clinical results. Funding: University of Milano-Bicocca and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Prosafe: a european endeavor to improve quality of critical care medicine in seven countries

BACKGROUND: long-lasting shared research databases are an important source of epidemiological information and can promote comparison between different healthcare services. Here we present ProsaFe, an advanced international research network in intensive care medicine, with the focus on assessing and improving the quality of care. the project involved 343 icUs in seven countries. all patients admitted to the icU were eligible for data collection. MetHoDs: the ProsaFe network collected data using the same electronic case report form translated into the corresponding languages. a complex, multidimensional validation system was implemented to ensure maximum data quality. individual and aggregate reports by country, region, and icU type were prepared annually. a web-based data-sharing system allowed participants to autonomously perform different analyses on both own data and the entire database. RESULTS: The final analysis was restricted to 262 general ICUs and 432,223 adult patients, mostly admitted to Italian units, where a research network had been active since 1991. organization of critical care medicine in the seven countries was relatively similar, in terms of staffing, case mix and procedures, suggesting a common understanding of the role of critical care medicine. conversely, icU equipment differed, and patient outcomes showed wide variations among countries. coNclUsioNs: ProsaFe is a permanent, stable, open access, multilingual database for clinical benchmarking, icU self-evaluation and research within and across countries, which offers a unique opportunity to improve the quality of critical care. its entry into routine clinical practice on a voluntary basis is testimony to the success and viability of the endeavor