Variability in Serum Sodium Concentration and Prognostic Significance in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Dysnatremia is common in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and may contribute to mortality. However, serum sodium variability has not been studied in TBI patients. We hypothesized that such variability would be independently associated with mortality. METHODS: We collected 6-hourly serum sodium levels for the first 7 days of ICU admission from 240 severe TBI patients in 14 neurotrauma ICUs in Europe and Australia. We evaluated the association between daily serum sodium standard deviation (dNaSD), an index of variability, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Patients were 46 ± 19 years of age with a median initial GCS of 6 [4-8]. Overall hospital mortality was 28%. Hypernatremia and hyponatremia occurred in 64% and 24% of patients, respectively. Over the first 7 days in ICU, serum sodium standard deviation was 2.8 [2.0-3.9] mmol/L. Maximum daily serum sodium standard deviation (dNaSD) occurred at a median of 2 [1-4] days after admission. There was a significant progressive decrease in dNaSD over the first 7 days (coefficient - 0.15 95% CI [- 0.18 to - 0.12], p < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline TBI severity, diabetes insipidus, the use of osmotherapy, the occurrence of hypernatremia, and hyponatremia and center, dNaSD was significantly independently associated with 28-day mortality (HR 1.27 95% CI (1.01-1.61), p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that daily serum sodium variability is an independent predictor of 28-day mortality in severe TBI patients. Further prospective investigations are necessary to confirm the significance of sodium variability in larger cohorts of TBI patients and test whether attenuating such variability confers outcome benefits to such patients

Early Osmotherapy in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury : An International Multicenter Study

The optimal osmotic agent to treat intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains uncertain. We aimed to test whether the choice of mannitol or hypertonic saline (HTS) as early (first 96 h) osmotherapy in these patients might be associated with a difference in mortality. We retrospectively analyzed data from 2015 from 14 tertiary intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, UK, and Europe treating severe TBI patients with intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and compared mortality in those who received mannitol only versus HTS only. We performed multi-variable analysis adjusting for site and illness severity (Injury Severity Score, extended IMPACT score, and mean ICP over the first 96 h) using Cox proportional hazards regression. We collected data on 262 patients and compared patients who received early osmotherapy with mannitol alone (n = 46) with those who received HTS alone (n = 46). Mannitol patients were older (median age, 49.2 (19.2) vs. 40.5 (16.8) years; p = 0.02), with higher Injury Severity Scores (42 (15.9) vs. 32.1 [11.3]; p = 0.001), and IMPACT-TBI predicted 6-month mortality (34.5% [23-46] vs. 25% [13-38]; p = 0.02), but had similar APACHE-II scores, and mean and maximum ICPs over the first 96 h. The unadjusted hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients receiving only mannitol was 3.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-7.03; p = 0.001). After adjustment for key mortality predictors, the hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients receiving only mannitol was 2.64 (95% CI, 0.96-7.30; p = 0.06). The choice of early osmotherapy in severe TBI patients may affect survival, or simply reflect clinician beliefs about their different roles, and warrants controlled investigation.Peer reviewe

Correction to: Serum sodium and intracranial pressure changes after desmopressin therapy in severe traumatic brain injury patients : a multi-centre cohort study

Following publication of the original article [1], we were notified that the collaborators’ names part of the “The TBI Collaborative” group has not been indexed in Pubmed. Below the collaborators names full list

Questionnaires vs Interviews for the Assessment of Global Functional Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury.

IMPORTANCE: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point. OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury. EXPOSURES: Traumatic brain injury of all severities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms. RESULTS: Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews

Biomarkers for Traumatic Brain Injury: Data Standards and Statistical Considerations

Recent biomarker innovations hold potential for transforming diagnosis, prognostic modeling, and precision therapeutic targeting of traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, many biomarkers, including brain imaging, genomics, and proteomics, involve vast quantities of high-throughput and high-content data. Management, curation, analysis, and evidence synthesis of these data are not trivial tasks. In this review, we discuss data management concepts and statistical and data sharing strategies when dealing with biomarker data in the context of TBI research. We propose that application of biomarkers involves three distinct steps-discovery, evaluation, and evidence synthesis. First, complex/big data has to be reduced to useful data elements at the stage of biomarker discovery. Second, inferential statistical approaches must be applied to these biomarker data elements for assessment of biomarker clinical utility and validity. Last, synthesis of relevant research is required to support practice guidelines and enable health decisions informed by the highest quality, up-to-date evidence available. We focus our discussion around recent experiences from the International Traumatic Brain Injury Research (InTBIR) initiative, with a specific focus on four major clinical projects (Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI, Collaborative Research on Acute Traumatic Brain Injury in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe, and Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial), which are currently enrolling subjects in North America and Europe. We discuss common data elements, data collection efforts, data-sharing opportunities, and challenges, as well as examine the statistical techniques required to realize successful adoption and use of biomarkers in the clinic as a foundation for precision medicine in TBI