Trajectories of early secondary insults correlate to outcomes of traumatic brain injury: results from a large, single centre, observational study

Background: Secondary insults (SI), such as hypotension, hypoxia, and intracranial hypertension frequently occur after traumatic brain injury (TBI), and have a strong impact on patients\u2019 clinical outcomes. The aim of this study is to examine the trajectories of SI from the early phase of injury in the prehospital setting to hospital admission in a cohort of TBI patients. Methods: This is a retrospective, observational, single centre study on consecutive patients admitted from 1997 to 2016 to the Neuro Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at San Gerardo Hospital, in Monza, Italy. Trajectories of SI from the prehospital to hospital settings were defined as \u201csustained\u201d, \u201cresolved\u201d, \u201cnew event\u201d, and \u201cnone\u201d. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to correlate SI trajectories to a 6-months outcome. Results: Nine hundred sixty-seven patients were enrolled in the final analysis. About 20% had hypoxic or hypotensive events and 30.7% of patients had pupillary abnormalities. Hypotension and hypoxia were associated with an unfavourable outcome when \u201csustained\u201d and \u201cresolved\u201d, while pupillary abnormalities were associated with a poor outcome when \u201csustained\u201d and as \u201cnew events\u201d. After adjusting for confounding factors, 6-month mortality strongly correlated with \u201csustained\u201d hypotension (OR 11.25, 95% CI, 3.52\u201335.99), \u201csustained\u201d pupillary abnormalities (OR 2.8, 95% CI, 1.51\u20135.2) and \u201cnew event\u201d pupillary abnormalities (OR 2.8, 95% CI, 1.16\u20136.76). Conclusions: After TBI, sustained hypotension and pupillary abnormalities are important determinants for patients\u2019 outcomes. Early trajectories define the dynamics of SI and contribute to a better understanding of how early recognition and treatments in emergency settings could impact on 6-month outcomes and mortality

Ensuring editorial continuity and quality of science during the COVID-19 storm: the ICM experience

We analyzed the manuscript submissions to ICM and the responses of the invited reviewers from January to April 2020, and compared the findings of peer-review activity with the same time span in 2019. From January 1st to April 30th 2020, there was a considerable increase in submissions (1201 total submissions, 617 of which were COVID-related) over the comparable time in 2019 (554 total submissions). In both cases, the average percentage of advanced rejections was around 60.In 2019, 180 manuscripts were sent to 1.271 reviewers. In the comparable period of 2020, 296 manuscripts were sent out to 1.741 reviewers. Despite the rapid and massive increase in workload for intensive care health professionals due to the ‘Corona crisis’ our findings suggest that, overall, the peer-review activity in high-quality intensive care journals has not suffered a crisis and does guarantee the continuity of one of the columns of quality in science

Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure versus intracranial pressure for outcome association in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI validation study

Background: Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure (wICP) has recently been suggested as a supplementary measure of intracranial pressure (ICP) in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a single-center study suggesting an association with mortality at 6 months. No multi-center studies exist to validate this relationship. The goal was to compare wICP to ICP for association with outcome in a multi-center TBI cohort. Methods: Using the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) high-resolution intensive care unit (ICU) cohort, we derived ICP and wICP (calculated as wICP = (1 12 RAP) 7 ICP; where RAP is the compensatory reserve index derived from the moving correlation between pulse amplitude of ICP and ICP). Various univariate logistic regression models were created comparing ICP and wICP to dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12 months, based on Glasgow Outcome Score\u2014Extended (GOSE) (alive/dead\u2014GOSE 65 2/GOSE = 1; favorable/unfavorable\u2014GOSE 5 to 8/GOSE 1 to 4, respectively). Models were compared using area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) and p values. Results: wICP displayed higher AUC compared to ICP on univariate regression for alive/dead outcome compared to mean ICP (AUC 0.712, 95% CI 0.615\u20130.810, p = 0.0002, and AUC 0.642, 95% CI 0.538\u2013746, p < 0.0001, respectively; no significant difference on Delong\u2019s test), and for favorable/unfavorable outcome (AUC 0.627, 95% CI 0.548\u20130.705, p = 0.015, and AUC 0.495, 95% CI 0.413\u20130.577, p = 0.059; significantly different using Delong\u2019s test p = 0.002), with lower wICP values associated with improved outcomes (p < 0.05 for both). These relationships on univariate analysis held true even when comparing the wICP models with those containing both ICP and RAP integrated area under the curve over time (p < 0.05 for all via Delong\u2019s test). Conclusions: Compensatory-reserve-weighted ICP displays superior outcome association for both alive/dead and favorable/unfavorable dichotomized outcomes in adult TBI, through univariate analysis. Lower wICP is associated with better global outcomes. The results of this study provide multi-center validation of those seen in a previous single-center study

Univariate comparison of performance of different cerebrovascular reactivity indices for outcome association in adult TBI: a CENTER-TBI study

Background: Monitoring cerebrovascular reactivity in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been linked to global patient outcome. Three intra-cranial pressure (ICP)-derived indices have been described. It is unknown which index is superior for outcome association in TBI outside previous single-center evaluations. The goal of this study is to evaluate indices for 6- to 12-month outcome association using uniform data harvested in multiple centers. Methods: Using the prospectively collected data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study, the following indices of cerebrovascular reactivity were derived: PRx (correlation between ICP and mean arterial pressure (MAP)), PAx (correlation between pulse amplitude of ICP (AMP) and MAP), and RAC (correlation between AMP and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP)). Univariate logistic regression models were created to assess the association between vascular reactivity indices with global dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12 months, as assessed by Glasgow Outcome Score\u2013Extended (GOSE). Models were compared via area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and Delong\u2019s test. Results: Two separate patient groups from this cohort were assessed: the total population with available data (n = 204) and only those without decompressive craniectomy (n = 159), with identical results. PRx, PAx, and RAC perform similar in outcome association for both dichotomized outcomes, alive/dead and favorable/unfavorable, with RAC trending towards higher AUC values. There were statistically higher mean values for the index, % time above threshold, and hourly dose above threshold for each of PRx, PAx, and RAC in those patients with poor outcomes. Conclusions: PRx, PAx, and RAC appear similar in their associations with 6- to 12-month outcome in moderate/severe adult TBI, with RAC showing tendency to achieve stronger associations. Further work is required to determine the role for each of these cerebrovascular indices in monitoring of TBI patients

International prospective observational study on intracranial pressure in intensive care (ICU): the SYNAPSE-ICU study protocol.

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is commonly used in neurocritical care patients with acute brain injury (ABI). Practice about indications and use of ICP monitoring in patients with ABI remains, however, highly variable in high-income countries, while data on ICP monitoring in low and middle-income countries are scarce or inconsistent. The aim of the SYNAPSE-ICU study is to describe current practices of ICP monitoring using a worldwide sample and to quantify practice variations in ICP monitoring and management in neurocritical care ABI patients. The SYNAPSE-ICU study is a large international, prospective, observational cohort study. From March 2018 to March 2019, all patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria will be recruited: age >18 years; diagnosis of ABI due to primary haemorrhagic stroke (subarachnoid haemorrhage or intracranial haemorrhage) or traumatic brain injury; Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) with no eye opening (Eyes response=1) and Motor score ≤5 (not following commands) at ICU admission, or neuro-worsening within the first 48 hours with no eye opening and a Motor score decreased to ≤5. Data related to clinical examination (GCS, pupil size and reactivity, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score, neuroimaging) and to ICP interventions (Therapy Intensity Levels) will be recorded on admission, and at day 1, 3 and 7. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) will be collected at discharge from ICU and from hospital and at 6-month follow-up. The impact of ICP monitoring and ICP-driven therapy on GOSE will be analysed at both patient and ICU level. The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee 'Brianza' at the Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST)-Monza (approval date: 21 November 2017). Each National Coordinator will notify the relevant ethics committee, in compliance with the local legislation and rules. Data will be made available to the scientific community by means of abstracts submitted to the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine annual conference and by scientific reports and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals. NCT03257904

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

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