Aortic valve calcification volumes and chronic brain infarctions in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Chronic silent brain infarctions, detected as new white matter hyperintensities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), are associated with long-term cognitive deterioration. This is the first study to investigate to which extent the calcification volume of the native aortic valve (AV) measured with cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA) predicts the increase in chronic white matter hyperintensity volume after TAVI. A total of 36 patients (79 ± 5 years, median EuroSCORE II 1.9%, Q1–Q3 1.5–3.4%) with severe AV stenosis underwent fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI < 24 h prior to TAVI and at 3 months follow-up for assessment of cerebral white matter hyperintensity volume (mL). Calcification volumes (mm3) of the AV, aortic arch, landing zone and left ventricle were measured on the CTA pre-TAVI. The largest calcification volumes were found in the AV (median 692 mm3) and aortic arch (median 633 mm3), with a large variation between patients (Q1–Q3 482–1297 mm3 and 213–1727 mm3, respectively). The white matter hyperintensity volume increased in 72% of the patients. In these patients the median volume increase was of 1.1 mL (Q1–Q3 0.3–4.6 mL), corresponding with a 27% increase from baseline (Q1–Q3 7–104%). The calcification volume in the AV predicted the increase of white matter hyperintensity volume (Δ%), with a 35% increase of white matter hyperintensity volume, per 100 mm3 of AV calcification volume (SE 8.5, p < 0.001). The calcification volumes in the aortic arch, landing zone and left ventricle were not associated with the increase in white matter hyperintensity volume. In 72% of the patients new chronic white matter hyperintensities developed 3 months after TAVI, with a median increase of 27%. A higher calcification volume in the AV was associated with a larger increase in the white matter hyperintensity volume. These findings show the potential for automated AV calcium screening as an imaging biomarker to predict chronic silent brain infarctions

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

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

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

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified. Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Rehabilitation and outcomes after complicated vs uncomplicated mild TBI: results from the CENTER-TBI study

Background: Despite existing guidelines for managing mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), evidence-based treatments are still scarce and large-scale studies on the provision and impact of specific rehabilitation services are needed. This study aimed to describe the provision of rehabilitation to patients after complicated and uncomplicated mTBI and investigate factors associated with functional outcome, symptom burden, and TBI-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) up to six months after injury. Methods: Patients (n = 1379) with mTBI from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study who reported whether they received rehabilitation services during the first six months post-injury and who participated in outcome assessments were included. Functional outcome was measured with the Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE), symptom burden with the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), and HRQOL with the Quality of Life after Brain Injury – Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS). We examined whether transition of care (TOC) pathways, receiving rehabilitation services, sociodemographic (incl. geographic), premorbid, and injury-related factors were associated with outcomes using regression models. For easy comparison, we estimated ordinal regression models for all outcomes where the scores were classified based on quantiles. Results: Overall, 43% of patients with complicated and 20% with uncomplicated mTBI reported receiving rehabilitation services, primarily in physical and cognitive domains. Patients with complicated mTBI had lower functional level, higher symptom burden, and lower HRQOL compared to uncomplicated mTBI. Rehabilitation services at three or six months and a higher number of TOC were associated with unfavorable outcomes in all models, in addition to pre-morbid psychiatric problems. Being male and having more than 13 years of education was associated with more favorable outcomes. Sustaining major trauma was associated with unfavorable GOSE outcome, whereas living in Southern and Eastern European regions was associated with lower HRQOL. Conclusions: Patients with complicated mTBI reported more unfavorable outcomes and received rehabilitation services more frequently. Receiving rehabilitation services and higher number of care transitions were indicators of injury severity and associated with unfavorable outcomes. The findings should be interpreted carefully and validated in future studies as we applied a novel analytic approach. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02210221

Serum metabolome associated with severity of acute traumatic brain injury

Complex metabolic disruption is a crucial aspect of the pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Associations between this and systemic metabolism and their potential prognostic value are poorly understood. Here, we aimed to describe the serum metabolome (including lipidome) associated with acute TBI within 24 h post-injury, and its relationship to severity of injury and patient outcome. We performed a comprehensive metabolomics study in a cohort of 716 patients with TBI and non-TBI reference patients (orthopedic, internal medicine, and other neurological patients) from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) cohort. We identified panels of metabolites specifically associated with TBI severity and patient outcomes. Choline phospholipids (lysophosphatidylcholines, ether phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins) were inversely associated with TBI severity and were among the strongest predictors of TBI patient outcomes, which was further confirmed in a separate validation dataset of 558 patients. The observed metabolic patterns may reflect different pathophysiological mechanisms, including protective changes of systemic lipid metabolism aiming to maintain lipid homeostasis in the brain

Changing care pathways and between-center practice variations in intensive care for traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis

peer reviewedPurpose: To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers. Methods: This is a prospective observational multicenter study conducted across 18 countries in Europe and Israel. Admission characteristics, clinical data, and outcome were described at patient- and center levels. Between-center variation in the total ICU population was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR), with correction for case-mix and random variation between centers. Results: A total of 2138 patients were admitted to the ICU, with median age of 49 years; 36% of which were mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale; GCS 13–15). Within, 72 h 636 (30%) were discharged and 128 (6%) died. Early deaths and long-stay patients (> 72 h) had more severe injuries based on the GCS and neuroimaging characteristics, compared with short-stay patients. Long-stay patients received more monitoring and were treated at higher intensity, and experienced worse 6-month outcome compared to short-stay patients. Between-center variations were prominent in the proportion of short-stay patients (MOR = 2.3, p < 0.001), use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (MOR = 2.5, p < 0.001) and aggressive treatments (MOR = 2.9, p < 0.001); and smaller in 6-month outcome (MOR = 1.2, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Half of contemporary TBI patients at the ICU have mild to moderate head injury. Substantial between-center variations exist in ICU stay and treatment policies, and less so in outcome. It remains unclear whether admission of short-stay patients represents appropriate prudence or inappropriate use of clinical resources. © 2020, The Author(s)

Variation in structure and process of care in traumatic brain injury: Provider profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

Introduction: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Methods: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions.Results: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. Conclusion: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.</p