Early surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hematoma: a CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding the effect of surgery in traumatic intracerebral hematoma (t-ICH) is limited and relies on the STITCH(Trauma) trial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of early surgery to conservative treatment in patients with a t-ICH. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, we included patients with a large t-ICH (< 48 h of injury). Primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, analyzed with multivariable proportional odds logistic regression. Subgroups included injury severity and isolated vs. non-isolated t-ICH. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients with a large t-ICH were included, of whom 160 received early surgery and 207 received conservative treatment. Patients receiving early surgery were younger (median age 54 vs. 58 years) and more severely injured (median Glasgow Coma Scale 7 vs. 10) compared to those treated conservatively. In the overall cohort, early surgery was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.1, (95% CI, 0.6-1.7)) compared to conservative treatment. Early surgery was associated with better outcome for patients with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH (AOR 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.5); P value for interaction 0.004). Conversely, in mild TBI and those with a smaller t-ICH (< 33 cc), conservative treatment was associated with better outcome (AOR 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.9); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0); P value for interaction 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Early surgery in t-ICH might benefit those with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH, comparable with results of the STITCH(Trauma) trial.

Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI): an observational cohort study.

Background: Limited evidence existed on the comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) versus craniotomy for evacuation of traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) until the recently published randomised clinical trial RESCUE-ASDH. In this study, that ran concurrently, we aimed to determine current practice patterns and compare outcomes of primary DC versus craniotomy. Methods: We conducted an analysis of centre treatment preference within the prospective, multicentre, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (known as CENTER-TBI) and NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry (known as Net-QuRe) studies, which enrolled patients throughout Europe and Israel (2014-2020). We included patients with an ASDH who underwent acute neurosurgical evacuation. Patients with severe pre-existing neurological disorders were excluded. In an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference, measured by the case-mix adjusted proportion DC per centre. The primary outcome was functional outcome rated by the 6-months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582). Findings: Between December 19, 2014 and December 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI of whom 336 (7%) underwent acute surgery for ASDH evacuation; 91 (27%) underwent DC and 245 (63%) craniotomy. The proportion primary DC within total acute surgery cases ranged from 6 to 67% with an interquartile range (IQR) of 12-26% among 46 centres; the odds of receiving a DC for prognostically similar patients in one centre versus another randomly selected centre were trebled (adjusted median odds ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001). Higher centre preference for DC over craniotomy was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio (OR) per 14% [IQR increase] more DC in a centre = 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1], n = 200). Primary DC was associated with more follow-on surgeries and complications [secondary cranial surgery 27% vs. 18%; shunts 11 vs. 5%]; and similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 14% IQR more primary DC 1.3 [95% CI (1.0-3.4), n = 200]). Interpretation: We found substantial practice variation in the employment of DC over craniotomy for ASDH. This variation in treatment strategy did not result in different functional outcome. These findings suggest that primary DC should be restricted to salvageable patients in whom immediate replacement of the bone flap is not possible due to intraoperative brain swelling. Funding: Hersenstichting Nederland for the Dutch NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.

Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in pediatric traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) has increased significantly. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma recommends using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UH) in pediatric patients requiring VTE prophylaxis, although this strategy is unsupported by the literature. In this study, the authors compare the outcomes of pediatric TBI patients receiving LMWH versus UH. METHODS: The authors performed a 4-year (2014-2017) analysis of the pediatric American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program. All trauma patients (age ≤ 18 years) with TBI requiring thromboprophylaxis with UH or LMWH were potentially eligible for inclusion. Patients who had been transferred, had died in the emergency department, or had penetrating trauma were excluded. Patients were stratified into either the LMWH or the UH group on the basis of the prophylaxis they had received. Patients were matched on the basis of demographics, injury characteristics, vital signs, and transfusion requirements using propensity score matching (PSM). The study endpoints were VTE, death, and craniotomy after initiation of prophylaxis. Univariate analysis was performed after PSM to compare outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2479 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 15.5 ± 3.7 years and 32.0% female), of which 1570 (63.3%) had received LMWH and 909 (36.7%) had received UH. Before PSM, patients receiving UH were younger, had a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, and had a higher Injury Severity Score. Patients treated in pediatric hospitals were more likely to receive UH (12.9% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001) than patients treated in adult hospitals. Matched patients receiving UH had a higher incidence of VTE (5.1% vs 2.9%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: LMWH prophylaxis in pediatric TBI appears to be more effective than UH in preventing VTE. Large, multicenter prospective studies are warranted to confirm the superiority of LMWH over UH in pediatric patients with TBI. Moreover, outcomes of VTE prophylaxis in the very young remain understudied; therefore, dedicated studies to evaluate this population are needed.

Isolated rib cage fractures in the elderly: Do all patients belong to the intensive care unit? A retrospective nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Western Trauma Association guidelines recommend admitting patients 65 years or older with two or more rib fractures diagnosed by chest radiograph to the intensive care unit (ICU). Increased use of computed tomography has led to identification of less severe, "occult" rib fractures. We aimed to evaluate current national trends in disposition of older patients with isolated rib cage fractures and to identify characteristics of patients initially admitted to the ward who failed ward management. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients 65 years or older with isolated two or more blunt rib cage fractures using the 2010 to 2016 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was performed. Ward failure was defined as patients initially admitted to the ward with subsequent need for unplanned ICU admission or intubation. Multivariable analyses were derived to study the independent predictors of failure of ward management. Propensity score matching sub-analysis was used to assess outcomes in patients admitted to the ward versus ICU. RESULTS: There were 5,021 patients included in the analysis. Of these patients, 1,406 (28.0%) were admitted to the ICU. On multivariable analysis, age was an independent predictor of ICU admission. Of the 3,577 patients admitted directly to the ward, 38 (1.1%) patients required unplanned intubation or ICU admission. Independent predictors of failure of ward management included chronic renal failure (odds ratio [OR], 7.20; p ≤ 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50-20.76), traumatic pneumothorax (OR, 8.70; p = 0.008; 95% CI, 1.76-42.93), concurrent sternal fracture (OR, 6.52; p ≤ 0.001; 95% CI, 2.53-16.80), drug use disorder (OR, 6.58; p = 0.032; 95% CI, 1.17-36.96), and emergency department oxygen requirement or oxygen saturation less than 95% (OR, 2.38; p = 0.018; 95% CI, 1.16-4.86). Mortality was higher in patients with delayed ICU care versus patients with successful ward disposition (21.1% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the majority of isolated rib cage fractures in older patients are safely managed on the ward with exceedingly low ward failure rates (1.1%). Patients with failure of ward management have significantly higher mortality, and we have identified predictors of failing the ward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV; Prognostic III.

Pre-peritoneal pelvic packing for early hemorrhage control reduces mortality compared to resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in severe blunt pelvic trauma patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early hemorrhage control after severe blunt pelvic trauma is life-saving. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and outcomes of pre-peritoneal packing (PPP) and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) with a subsequent hemorrhage control procedure to control life-threatening pelvic hemorrhage in trauma patients. METHODS: A 3-year (2015-2017) retrospective analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) was performed. All blunt trauma patients (aged ≥15 years) who underwent PPP or Zone 3 REBOA placement were included while deaths on arrival and transfers were excluded. Patients were matched on clinical characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM). Univariate analysis was performed to compare mortality, time to procedure, time in ED, transfusion requirements, complications rates, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) amongst patient groups. RESULTS: Of 420 trauma patients, 307 underwent PPP and 113 REBOA. Patients had similar hemodynamics and ISS upon presentation, but PPP patients had a higher GCS (P = 0.037) and more blunt kidney injuries (P = 0.015). After PSM, 206 trauma patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in blood transfusion, LOS, or major complications. Time to REBOA was shorter than time to PPP (52 vs 77.5 min; P<0.001) with longer time in ED (65 vs 51 min; p = 0.023). The 24-hour (32.4 vs 17.7%; P = 0.23) and in-hospital mortality (52.0 vs 37.3%; P = 0.048) were higher after REBOA. CONCLUSION: PPP is associated with improved survival compared to REBOA placement. Delay in definitive hemorrhage control may provide a potential explanation, but causation remains unresolved. This data suggests that early PPP may offer a benefit over REBOA in the setting of hemorrhage after blunt pelvic trauma. Further, large, multi-institutional studies are warranted to support these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.