Consensus paper on the assessment of adult patients with traumatic brain injury with Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15 at the emergency department: A multidisciplinary overview.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common reason for presenting to emergency departments (EDs). The assessment of these patients is frequently hampered by various confounders, and diagnostics is still often based on nonspecific clinical signs. Throughout Europe, there is wide variation in clinical practices, including the follow-up of those discharged from the ED. The objective is to present a practical recommendation for the assessment of adult patients with an acute TBI, focusing on milder cases not requiring in-hospital care. The aim is to advise on and harmonize practices for European settings. A multiprofessional expert panel, giving consensus recommendations based on recent scientific literature and clinical practices, is employed. The focus is on patients with a preserved consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15) not requiring in-hospital care after ED assessment. The main results of this paper contain practical, clinically usable recommendations for acute clinical assessment, decision-making on acute head computerized tomography (CT), use of biomarkers, discharge options, and needs for follow-up, as well as a discussion of the main features and risk factors for prolonged recovery. In conclusion, this consensus paper provides a practical stepwise approach for the clinical assessment of patients with an acute TBI at the ED. Recommendations are given for the performance of acute head CT, use of brain biomarkers and disposition after ED care including careful patient information and organization of follow-up for those discharged.

Emergency Department Risk Factors for Post-Concussion Syndrome After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

Approximately 16% of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) develop a post-concussion syndrome (PCS) with persistent physical, neurological, and behavioral complaints. PCS has a great impact on a patient's quality of life, often decreases the ability to return to work, and henceforth has a great economic impact. Recent studies suggest that early treatment can greatly improve prognosis and prevent long-term effects in these patients. However, early recognition of patients at high risk of PCS remains difficult. The objective of this systematic review is to assess risk factors associated with the development of PCS, primarily aimed at the group of non-hospitalized patients who were seen with mTBI at the emergency department (ED). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE on September 23, 2022, for prospective studies that assessed the risk factors for the development of PCS. Exclusion criteria were: retrospective studies; > 20% computed tomography (CT) abnormalities, <18 years of age, follow-up <4 weeks, severe trauma, and study population <100 patients. The search strategy identified 1628 articles, of which 17 studies met eligibility criteria. Risk factors found in this systematic review are pre-existing psychiatric history, headache at the ED, neurological symptoms at the ED, female sex, CT abnormalities, pre-existent sleeping problems, and neck pain at the ED. This systematic review identified seven risk factors for development of PCS in patients with mTBI. Future research should assess if implementation of these risk factors into a risk stratification tool will assist the emergency physician in the identification of patients at high risk of PCS.

Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of the HEART Score Calculated by Ambulance Nurses Versus Emergency Physicians.

Chest pain is a common complaint for consultation of emergency medical services worldwide. Currently, ambulance nurses (AN) base their decision to transport a patient to the hospital on their own professional experience. The HEART score could improve prehospital risk stratification and patient treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the HEART score between AN and emergency physicians (EP). A retrospective analysis on data of 569 patients 18 years and older included in two prehospital HEART score studies. The endpoints are interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC]) and predictive accuracy for major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of the HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. Predictive accuracy is sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV) and negative predicted value (NPV). Interrater reliability was good for total HEART score (ICC 0.78; 95% CI 0.75-0.81). However, focusing on the decision to transport a patient, the ICC dropped to 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). History and Risk factors caused the most variability. Predictive accuracy of HEART differed between AN and EP. The HEART score calculated by AN was sensitivity 91%, specificity 38%, PPV 26%, and NPV 95%. The HEART score calculated by EP was sensitivity 98%, specificity 32%, PPV -26%, and NPV 99%. With a cut-off value of 0-2 for a low HEART score, predictive accuracy significantly improved for the HEART score calculated by AN: sensitivity 98%, specificity 18%, PPV 22%, and NPV 98%. Our study shows a moderate interrater reliability and lower predictive accuracy of a HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. AN underestimate the risk of patients with acute chest pain, with the largest discrepancies in the elements History and Risk factors. Reconsidering the cut-off values of the low-risk HEART category, as well as a carefully developed training program, will possibly lead to a higher interrater reliability of the HEART score and higher predictive accuracy used by AN.