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

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

Primary versus early secondary referral to a specialized neurotrauma center in patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a CENTER TBI study

Funder: ZNS - Hannelore Kohl Stiftung; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007731Funder: Integra LifeSciences CorporationFunder: OneMindAbstract: Background: Prehospital care for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) varies with some emergency medical systems recommending direct transport of patients with moderate to severe TBI to hospitals with specialist neurotrauma care (SNCs). The aim of this study is to assess variation in levels of early secondary referral within European SNCs and to compare the outcomes of directly admitted and secondarily transferred patients. Methods: Patients with moderate and severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale < 13) from the prospective European CENTER-TBI study were included in this study. All participating hospitals were specialist neuroscience centers. First, adjusted between-country differences were analysed using random effects logistic regression where early secondary referral was the dependent variable, and a random intercept for country was included. Second, the adjusted effect of early secondary referral on survival to hospital discharge and functional outcome [6 months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE)] was estimated using logistic and ordinal mixed effects models, respectively. Results: A total of 1347 moderate/severe TBI patients from 53 SNCs in 18 European countries were included. Of these 1347 patients, 195 (14.5%) were admitted after early secondary referral. Secondarily referred moderate/severe TBI patients presented more often with a CT abnormality: mass lesion (52% vs. 34%), midline shift (54% vs. 36%) and acute subdural hematoma (77% vs. 65%). After adjusting for case-mix, there was a large European variation in early secondary referral, with a median OR of 1.69 between countries. Early secondary referral was not associated with functional outcome (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78–1.69), nor with survival at discharge (1.05, 0.58–1.90). Conclusions: Across Europe, substantial practice variation exists in the proportion of secondarily referred TBI patients at SNCs that is not explained by case mix. Within SNCs early secondary referral does not seem to impact functional outcome and survival after stabilisation in a non-specialised hospital. Future research should identify which patients with TBI truly benefit from direct transportation

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study

Abstract Background General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. Methods We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. Results The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36–40 mmHg (4.8–5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30–35 mmHg (4–4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). Conclusions Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome

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

Abstract: 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

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent

Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedur

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study

PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.status: publishe