5 research outputs found

    Clustering identifies endotypes of traumatic brain injury in an intensive care cohort: a CENTER-TBI study

    Get PDF
    Background While the Glasgow coma scale (GCS) is one of the strongest outcome predictors, the current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) as ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ based on this fails to capture enormous heterogeneity in pathophysiology and treatment response. We hypothesized that data-driven characterization of TBI could identify distinct endotypes and give mechanistic insights. Methods We developed an unsupervised statistical clustering model based on a mixture of probabilistic graphs for presentation (< 24 h) demographic, clinical, physiological, laboratory and imaging data to identify subgroups of TBI patients admitted to the intensive care unit in the CENTER-TBI dataset (N = 1,728). A cluster similarity index was used for robust determination of optimal cluster number. Mutual information was used to quantify feature importance and for cluster interpretation. Results Six stable endotypes were identified with distinct GCS and composite systemic metabolic stress profiles, distinguished by GCS, blood lactate, oxygen saturation, serum creatinine, glucose, base excess, pH, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and body temperature. Notably, a cluster with ‘moderate’ TBI (by traditional classification) and deranged metabolic profile, had a worse outcome than a cluster with ‘severe’ GCS and a normal metabolic profile. Addition of cluster labels significantly improved the prognostic precision of the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical trials in TBI) extended model, for prediction of both unfavourable outcome and mortality (both p < 0.001). Conclusions Six stable and clinically distinct TBI endotypes were identified by probabilistic unsupervised clustering. In addition to presenting neurology, a profile of biochemical derangement was found to be an important distinguishing feature that was both biologically plausible and associated with outcome. Our work motivates refining current TBI classifications with factors describing metabolic stress. Such data-driven clusters suggest TBI endotypes that merit investigation to identify bespoke treatment strategies to improve care

    Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in pediatric traumatic brain injury

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) has in-creased significantly. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma recommends using low-molecular-weight hepa- rin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UH) in pediatric patients requiring VTE prophylaxis, although this strategy is unsupported by the literature. In this study, the authors compare the outcomes of pediatric TBI patients receiving LMWH versus UH.METHODS The authors performed a 4-year (2014 & ndash;2017) analysis of the pediatric American College of Surgeons Trau-ma Quality Improvement Program. All trauma patients (age <= 18 years) with TBI requiring thromboprophylaxis with UH or LMWH were potentially eligible for inclusion. Patients who had been transferred, had died in the emergency department, or had penetrating trauma were excluded. Patients were stratified into either the LMWH or the UH group on the basis of the prophylaxis they had received. Patients were matched on the basis of demographics, injury characteristics, vital signs, and transfusion requirements using propensity score matching (PSM). The study endpoints were VTE, death, and craniotomy after initiation of prophylaxis. Univariate analysis was performed after PSM to compare outcomes.RESULTS A total of 2479 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 15.5 +/- 3.7 years and 32.0% female), of which 1570 (63.3%) had received LMWH and 909 (36.7%) had received UH. Before PSM, patients receiving UH were younger, had a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, and had a higher Injury Severity Score. Patients treated in pediatric hospitals were more likely to receive UH (12.9% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001) than patients treated in adult hospitals. Matched patients re-ceiving UH had a higher incidence of VTE (5.1% vs 2.9%, p = 0.03).CONCLUSIONS LMWH prophylaxis in pediatric TBI appears to be more effective than UH in preventing VTE. Large, multicenter prospective studies are warranted to confirm the superiority of LMWH over UH in pediatric patients with TBI. Moreover, outcomes of VTE prophylaxis in the very young remain understudied; therefore, dedicated studies to evaluate this are needed.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

    Comparison of outcomes in non-head injured trauma patients using pre-injury warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant therapy

    No full text
    Background: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin.Methods: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included inhospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition.Results: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p<0.001), and lower admission INR values (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.3] vs 2.4 [IQR, 1.8-2.7]; p<0.001) than warfarin users. Use of reversal agents was higher in warfarin users (p< 0.001). Relative to warfarin, DOAC users did not differ significantly with respect to hospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.13-1.73]). Multivariable analysis (not possible for mortality) did not show significant difference for RBC transfusion requirements (OR 0.92 [0.51-1.67]), ICU LOS (OR 1.08 [0.53-2.19]), hospital LOS (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.74]) or discharge disposition (OR 0.56 [0.29-1.11]) between the groups.Conclusion: Despite lower reversal rates and higher ISS, non-TBI trauma patients with pre-injury DOAC use had similar outcomes as patients on pre-injury warfarin. There may be equipoise to have larger, prospective studies evaluating the comparative safety of DOACs and warfarin in the population prone to low energy fall type injuries. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Trauma Surger

    Dopamine, Glutamate, and Aggression

    No full text
    corecore