Predicting Complicated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Adolescent Trauma to Enhance Clinical Decisions in Imaging.

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) traumatic brain injury algorithm is used to identify children at low risk of clinically significant traumatic brain injuries to reduce computed tomography (CT) exposure. Adapting PECARN rules based on population-specific risk stratification has been suggested to improve diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify center-specific patient variables, beyond PECARN rules, that may enhance the identification of patients requiring neuroimaging. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted from July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2020, in a Southwestern U.S. Level II pediatric trauma center. The inclusion criteria were adolescents (10-15 years), Glasgow Coma Scale (13-15), with a confirmed mechanical blow to the head. Patients without a head CT were excluded. Logistic regression was performed to identify additional complicated mild traumatic brain injury predictor variables beyond the PECARN. RESULTS: There were 136 patients studied; 21 (15%) presented with a complicated mild traumatic brain injury. Relative to motorcycle collision or all-terrain vehicle trauma (odds ratio [OR] 211.75, 95% confidence interval, CI [4.51, 9931.41], p < .001), an unspecified mechanism (OR 42.0, 95% CI [1.30, 1350.97], p = .03) and consult activation (OR 17.44, 95% CI [1.75, 173.31], p = .01) were significantly associated with complicated mild traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: We identified additional factors associated with complex mild traumatic brain injury, including motorcycle collision and all-terrain vehicle trauma, unspecified mechanism, and consult activation that are not in the PECARN imaging decision rule. Adding these variables may aid in determining the need for appropriate CT scanning.

Comparative impact of implementing the 2013 or 2014 cholesterol guideline on vascular events in a quality improvement network.

OBJECTIVES: The Quality and Care Model Committee for a clinically integrated network requested a comparative analysis on the projected cardiovascular benefits of implementing either the 2013 and 2014 cholesterol guideline in a South Carolina patient population. A secondary request was to assess the relative risk of the two guidelines based on the literature. METHODS: Electronic health data were obtained on 1,580,860 adults aged 21-80 years who had had one or more visits from January 2013 to June 2015; 566,688 had data to calculate 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD10) risk. Adults with end-stage renal disease (n = 7852), congestive heart failure (n = 19,818), alcohol or drug abuse (n = 68,547), or currently on statins (n = 154,964) were excluded leaving 315,508 for analysis. Estimated reduction in ASCVD10 assumed that: (a) moderate-intensity statins lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 35% and high-intensity statins by 50%; (b) ASCVD events declined 22% for each 1 mmol/l fall in LDL-C. RESULTS: Among the 315,508 adults in the analysis, 131,289 (41.6%) were eligible for statins according to the 2013 guideline and 137,375 (43.5%) to the 2014 guideline. The 2013 and 2014 guidelines were estimated to prevent 6780 and 5915 ASCVD events over 10 years with: (a) relative risk reductions of 29.0% and 21.8%; (b) absolute risk reductions of 5.2% and 4.3%; (c) number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 19 and 23, respectively. The greater projected cardiovascular protection with the 2013 guideline was largely related to greater use of high-dose statins, which carry a greater risk for adverse events. The literature indicates that the NNT for benefit with high-intensity versus moderate-intensity statins is 31 in high-risk patients with a number needed-to-harm of 47. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 guideline is projected to prevent more clinical ASCVD events and with lower NNTs than the 2014 guideline, yet both have substantial benefit. The 2013 guideline is also expected to generate more adverse events, but the risk-benefit profile appears favor .