Epidemiology, Prehospital Characteristics and Outcomes of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in The Netherlands: The BRAIN-PROTECT Study.

OBJECTIVE: A thorough understanding of the epidemiology, patient characteristics, trauma mechanisms, and current outcomes among patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important as it may inform potential strategies to improve prehospital emergency care. The aim of this study is to describe the prehospital epidemiology, characteristics and outcome of (suspected) severe TBI in the Netherlands. METHODS: The BRAIN-PROTECT study is a prospective observational study on prehospital management of patients with severe TBI in the Netherlands. The study population comprised all consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of TBI and a prehospital GCS score ≤ 8, who were managed by one of the 4 Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS). Patients were followed-up in 9 trauma centers until 1 year after injury. Planned sub-analyses were performed for patients with "confirmed" and "isolated" TBI. RESULTS: Data from 2,589 patients, of whom 2,117 (81.8%) were transferred to a participating trauma center, were analyzed. The incidence rate of prehospitally suspected and confirmed severe TBI were 3.2 (95% CI: 3.1;3.4) and 2.7 (95% CI: 2.5;2.8) per 100,000 inhabitants per year, respectively. Median patient age was 46 years, 58.4% were involved in traffic crashes, of which 37.4% were bicycle related. 47.6% presented with an initial GCS of 3. The median time from HEMS dispatch to hospital arrival was 54 minutes. The overall 30-day mortality was 39.0% (95% CI: 36.8;41.2). CONCLUSION: This article summarizes the prehospital epidemiology, characteristics and outcome of severe TBI in the Netherlands, and highlights areas in which primary prevention and prehospital care can be improved.

Dutch Prospective Observational Study on Prehospital Treatment of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: The BRAIN-PROTECT Study Protocol.

Background: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with a high mortality rate and those that survive commonly have permanent disability. While there is a broad consensus that appropriate prehospital treatment is crucial for a favorable neurological outcome, evidence to support currently applied treatment strategies is scarce. In particular, the relationship between prehospital treatments and patient outcomes is unclear. The BRAIN-PROTECT study therefore aims to identify prehospital treatment strategies associated with beneficial or detrimental outcomes. Here, we present the study protocol. Study Protocol: BRAIN-PROTECT is the acronym for BRAin INjury: Prehospital Registry of Outcome, Treatments and Epidemiology of Cerebral Trauma. It is a prospective observational study on the prehospital treatment of patients with suspected severe TBI in the Netherlands. Prehospital epidemiology, interventions, medication strategies, and nonmedical factors that may affect outcome are studied. Multivariable regression based modeling will be used to identify confounder-adjusted relationships between these factors and patient outcomes, including mortality at 30 days (primary outcome) or mortality and functional neurological outcome at 1 year (secondary outcomes). Patients in whom severe TBI is suspected during prehospital treatment (Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤ 8 in combination with a trauma mechanism or clinical findings suggestive of head injury) are identified by all four helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in the Netherlands. Patients are prospectively followed up in 9 participating trauma centers for up to one year. The manuscript reports in detail the objectives, setting, study design, patient inclusion, and data collection process. Ethical and juridical aspects, statistical considerations, as well as limitations of the study design are discussed. Discussion: Current prehospital treatment of patients with suspected severe TBI is based on marginal evidence, and optimal treatment is basically unknown. The BRAIN-PROTECT study provides an opportunity to evaluate and compare different treatment strategies with respect to patient outcomes. To our knowledge, this study project is the first large-scale prospective prehospital registry of patients with severe TBI that also collects long-term follow-up data and may provide the best available evidence at this time to give useful insights on how prehospital care can be improved.

Effect of a Low vs Intermediate Tidal Volume Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Interventions: Invasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax. Results: In total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.

Cancellations of (helicopter-transported) mobile medical team dispatches in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The trauma centre of the Trauma Center Region North-West Netherlands (TRNWN) has consensus criteria for Mobile Medical Team (MMT) scene dispatch. The MMT can be dispatched by the EMS-dispatch centre or by the on-scene ambulance crew and is transported by helicopter or ground transport. Although much attention has been paid to improve the dispatch criteria, the MMT is often cancelled after being dispatched. The aim of this study was to assess the cancellation rate and the noncompliant dispatches of our MMT and to identify factors associated with this form of primary overtriage. METHODS: By retrospective analysis of all MMT dispatches in the period from 1 July 2006 till 31 December 2006 using chart review, we conducted a consecutive case review of 605 dispatches. Four hundred and sixty seven of these were included for our study, collecting data related to prehospital triage, patient's condition on-scene and hospital course. RESULTS: Average age was 35.9 years; the majority of the patients were male (65.3%). Four hundred and thirty patients were victims of trauma, sustaining injuries in most cases from blunt trauma (89.3%). After being dispatched, the MMT was cancelled 203 times (43.5%). Statistically significant differences between assists and cancellations were found for overall mortality, mean RTS, GCS and ISS, mean hospitalization, length and amount of ICU admissions (p < 0.001). All dispatches were evaluated by using the MMT-dispatch criteria and mission appropriateness criteria. Almost 26% of all dispatches were neither appropriate, nor met the dispatch criteria. Fourteen missions were appropriate, but did not meet the dispatch criteria. The remaining 318 dispatches had met the dispatch criteria, of which 135 (30.3%) were also appropriate. The calculated additional costs of the cancelled dispatches summed up to a total of 34,448 euro, amounting to 2.2% of the total MMT costs during the study period. CONCLUSION: In our trauma system, the MMT dispatches are involved with high rates of overtriage. After being dispatched, the MMT is cancelled in almost 50% of all cases. We found an undertriage rate of 4%, which we think is acceptable. All cancellations were justified. The additional costs of the cancelled missions were within an acceptable range. According to this study, it seems to be possible to reduce the overtriage rate of the MMT dispatches, without increasing the undertriage rate to non-acceptable levels.

PReVENT--protective ventilation in patients without ARDS at start of ventilation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether lung-protective mechanical ventilation using low tidal volumes should be used in all critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A low tidal volume strategy includes use of higher respiratory rates, which could be associated with increased sedation needs, a higher incidence of delirium, and an increased risk of patient-ventilator asynchrony and ICU-acquired weakness. Another alleged side-effect of low tidal volume ventilation is the risk of atelectasis. All of these could offset the beneficial effects of low tidal volume ventilation as found in patients with ARDS. METHODS/DESIGN: PReVENT is a national multicenter randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated ICU patients without ARDS with an anticipated duration of ventilation of longer than 24 hours in 5 ICUs in The Netherlands. Consecutive patients are randomly assigned to a low tidal volume strategy using tidal volumes from 4 to 6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) or a high tidal volume ventilation strategy using tidal volumes from 8 to 10 ml/kg PBW. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary endpoints include ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, the incidence of pulmonary complications, including ARDS, pneumonia, atelectasis, and pneumothorax, the cumulative use and duration of sedatives and neuromuscular blocking agents, incidence of ICU delirium, and the need for decreasing of instrumental dead space. DISCUSSION: PReVENT is the first randomized controlled trial comparing a low tidal volume strategy with a high tidal volume strategy, in patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation, that recruits a sufficient number of patients to test the hypothesis that a low tidal volume strategy benefits patients without ARDS with regard to a clinically relevant endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov under reference number NCT02153294 on 23 May 2014.