Decompressive Craniectomy versus Craniotomy for Acute Subdural Hematoma.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic acute subdural hematomas frequently warrant surgical evacuation by means of a craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or decompressive craniectomy (bone flap not replaced). Craniectomy may prevent intracranial hypertension, but whether it is associated with better outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a trial in which patients undergoing surgery for traumatic acute subdural hematoma were randomly assigned to undergo craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy. An inclusion criterion was a bone flap with an anteroposterior diameter of 11 cm or more. The primary outcome was the rating on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (an 8-point scale, ranging from death to "upper good recovery" [no injury-related problems]) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the GOSE rating at 6 months and quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were assigned to the craniotomy group and 222 to the decompressive craniectomy group. The median diameter of the bone flap was 13 cm (interquartile range, 12 to 14) in both groups. The common odds ratio for the differences across GOSE ratings at 12 months was 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.18; P = 0.32). Results were similar at 6 months. At 12 months, death had occurred in 30.2% of the patients in the craniotomy group and in 32.2% of those in the craniectomy group; a vegetative state occurred in 2.3% and 2.8%, respectively, and a lower or upper good recovery occurred in 25.6% and 19.9%. EQ-5D-5L scores were similar in the two groups at 12 months. Additional cranial surgery within 2 weeks after randomization was performed in 14.6% of the craniotomy group and in 6.9% of the craniectomy group. Wound complications occurred in 3.9% of the craniotomy group and in 12.2% of the craniectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with traumatic acute subdural hematoma who underwent craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy, disability and quality-of-life outcomes were similar with the two approaches. Additional surgery was performed in a higher proportion of the craniotomy group, but more wound complications occurred in the craniectomy group. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; RESCUE-ASDH ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN87370545.).

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. DESIGN: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. PARTICIPANTS: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. RESULTS: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that 'the diagnostic label 'concussion' may be used interchangeably with 'mild TBI' when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.' CONCLUSIONS: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.

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.

Traumatic Brain Injury in Cameroon: A Prospective Observational Study in a Level I Trauma Centre.

Background and Objective: About 14 million people will likely suffer a traumatic brain injury (TBI) per year by 2050 in sub-Saharan Africa. Studying TBI characteristics and their relation to outcomes can identify initiatives to improve TBI prevention and care. The objective of this study was to define the features and outcomes of TBI patients seen over a 1-year period in a level-I trauma centre in Cameroon. Materials and Methods: Data on demographics, causes, clinical aspects, and discharge status were collected over a period of 12 months. The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) and the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire after Brain Injury (QoLIBRI) were used to evaluate outcomes six months after TBI. Comparisons between two categorical variables were done using Pearson's chi-square test. Results: A total of 160 TBI patients participated in the study. The age group 15-45 years was most represented (78%). Males were more affected (90%). A low educational level was seen in 122 (76%) cases. Road traffic incidents (RTI) (85%), assaults (7.5%), and falls (2.5%) were the main causes of TBI, with professional bike riders being frequently involved (27%). Only 15 patients were transported to the hospital by ambulance, and 14 of these were from a referring hospital. CT-imaging was performed in 78% of cases, and intracranial traumatic abnormalities were identified in 64% of cases. Financial constraints (93%) was the main reason for not performing a CT scan. Forty-six (33%) patients were discharged against medical advice (DAMA) due to financial constraints. Mortality was 14% (22/160) and high in patients with severe TBI (46%). DAMA had poor outcomes with QoLIBRI. Only four patients received post-injury physical therapy services. Conclusions: TBI in Cameroon mainly results from RTIs and commonly affects young adult males. Lack of pre-hospital care, financial constraints limiting both CT scanning and medical care, and a lack of acute physiotherapy services likely influenced care and outcomes adversely.

Discrepancy between disability and reported well-being after traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Following traumatic brain injury (TBI), the clinical focus is often on disability. However, patients' perceptions of well-being can be discordant with their disability level, referred to as the 'disability paradox'. We aimed to examine the relationship between disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following TBI, while taking variation in personal, injury-related and environment factors into account. METHODS: We used data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury study. Disability was assessed 6 months post-injury by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). HRQoL was assessed by the SF-12v2 physical and mental component summary scores and the Quality of Life after Traumatic Brain Injury overall scale. We examined mean total and domain HRQoL scores by GOSE. We quantified variance in HRQoL explained by GOSE, personal, injury-related and environment factors with multivariable regression. RESULTS: Six-month outcome assessments were completed in 2075 patients, of whom 78% had mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15). Patients with severe disability had higher HRQoL than expected on the basis of GOSE alone, particularly after mild TBI. Up to 50% of patients with severe disability reported HRQoL scores within the normative range. GOSE, personal, injury-related and environment factors explained a limited amount of variance in HRQoL (up to 29%). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the idea that discrepancies are unusual, many patients with poor functional outcomes reported well-being that was at or above the boundary considered satisfactory for the normative sample. These findings challenge the idea that satisfactory HRQoL in patients with disability should be described as 'paradoxical' and question common views of what constitutes 'unfavourable' outcome.

Serum biomarkers identify critically ill traumatic brain injury patients for MRI.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) carries prognostic importance after traumatic brain injury (TBI), especially when computed tomography (CT) fails to fully explain the level of unconsciousness. However, in critically ill patients, the risk of deterioration during transfer needs to be balanced against the benefit of detecting prognostically relevant information on MRI. We therefore aimed to assess if day of injury serum protein biomarkers could identify critically ill TBI patients in whom the risks of transfer are compensated by the likelihood of detecting management-altering neuroimaging findings. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Eligibility criteria included: TBI patients aged ≥ 16 years, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) < 13 or patient intubated with unrecorded pre-intubation GCS, CT with Marshall score < 3, serum biomarkers (GFAP, NFL, NSE, S100B, Tau, UCH-L1) sampled ≤ 24 h of injury, MRI < 30 days of injury. The degree of axonal injury on MRI was graded using the Adams-Gentry classification. The association between serum concentrations of biomarkers and Adams-Gentry stage was assessed and the optimum threshold concentration identified, assuming different minimum sensitivities for the detection of brainstem injury (Adams-Gentry stage 3). A cost-benefit analysis for the USA and UK health care settings was also performed. RESULTS: Among 65 included patients (30 moderate-severe, 35 unrecorded) axonal injury was detected in 54 (83%) and brainstem involvement in 33 (51%). In patients with moderate-severe TBI, brainstem injury was associated with higher concentrations of NSE, Tau, UCH-L1 and GFAP. If the clinician did not want to miss any brainstem injury, NSE could have avoided MRI transfers in up to 20% of patients. If a 94% sensitivity was accepted considering potential transfer-related complications, GFAP could have avoided 30% of transfers. There was no added net cost, with savings up to £99 (UK) or $612 (US). No associations between proteins and axonal injury were found in intubated patients without a recorded pre-intubation GCS. CONCLUSIONS: Serum protein biomarkers show potential to safely reduce the number of transfers to MRI in critically ill patients with moderate-severe TBI at no added cost.

Development of prognostic models for Health-Related Quality of Life following traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of impairments affecting Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). We aimed to identify predictors of and develop prognostic models for HRQoL following TBI. METHODS: We used data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Core study, including patients with a clinical diagnosis of TBI and an indication for computed tomography presenting within 24 h of injury. The primary outcome measures were the SF-36v2 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health component summary scores and the Quality of Life after Traumatic Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) total score 6 months post injury. We considered 16 patient and injury characteristics in linear regression analyses. Model performance was expressed as proportion of variance explained (R2) and corrected for optimism with bootstrap procedures. RESULTS: 2666 Adult patients completed the HRQoL questionnaires. Most were mild TBI patients (74%). The strongest predictors for PCS were Glasgow Coma Scale, major extracranial injury, and pre-injury health status, while MCS and QOLIBRI were mainly related to pre-injury mental health problems, level of education, and type of employment. R2 of the full models was 19% for PCS, 9% for MCS, and 13% for the QOLIBRI. In a subset of patients following predominantly mild TBI (N = 436), including 2 week HRQoL assessment improved model performance substantially (R2 PCS 15% to 37%, MCS 12% to 36%, and QOLIBRI 10% to 48%). CONCLUSION: Medical and injury-related characteristics are of greatest importance for the prediction of PCS, whereas patient-related characteristics are more important for the prediction of MCS and the QOLIBRI following TBI.

Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)-driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)-driven treatment. METHODS: The CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with "center" as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome. RESULTS: A total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36-1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34-2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs. CONCLUSION: We found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor-guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group. PROTOCOL: The core study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).

Opportunities and Challenges in High-Quality Contemporary Data Collection in Traumatic Brain Injury: The CENTER-TBI Experience.

Strong evidence in support of guidelines for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is lacking. Large-scale observational studies may offer a complementary source of evidence to clinical trials to improve the care and outcome for patients with TBI. They are, however, challenging to execute. In this review, we aim to characterize opportunities and challenges of large-scale collaborative research in neurotrauma. We use the setup and conduct of Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) as an illustrative example. We highlight the importance of building a team and of developing a network for younger researchers, thus investing toward the future. We involved investigators early in the design phase and recognized their efforts in a group contributor list on all publications. We found, however, that translation to academic credits often failed, and we suggest that the current system of academic credits be critically appraised. We found substantial variability in consent procedures for participant enrollment within and between countries. Overall, obtaining approvals typically required 4-6 months, with outliers up to 18 months. Research costs varied considerably across Europe and should be defined by center. We substantially underestimated costs of data curation, and we suggest that 15-20% of the budget be reserved for this purpose. Streamlining analyses and accommodating external research proposals demanded a structured approach. We implemented a systematic inventory of study plans and found this effective in maintaining oversight and in promoting collaboration between research groups. Ensuring good use of the data was a prominent feature in the review of external proposals. Multiple interactions occurred with industrial partners, mainly related to biomarkers and neuroimaging, and resulted in various formal collaborations, substantially extending the scope of CENTER-TBI. Overall, CENTER-TBI has been productive, with over 250 international peer-reviewed publications. We have ensured mechanisms to maintain the infrastructure and continued analyses. We see potential for individual patient data meta-analyses in connection to other large-scale projects. Our collaboration with Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) has taught us that although standardized data collection and coding according to common data elements can facilitate such meta-analyses, further data harmonization is required for meaningful results. Both CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI have demonstrated the complexity of the conduct of large-scale collaborative studies that produce high-quality science and new insights.

Can We Cluster ICU Treatment Strategies for Traumatic Brain Injury by Hospital Treatment Preferences?

BACKGROUND: In traumatic brain injury (TBI), large between-center differences in treatment and outcome for patients managed in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been shown. The aim of this study is to explore if European neurotrauma centers can be clustered, based on their treatment preference in different domains of TBI care in the ICU. METHODS: Provider profiles of centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI study were used to assess correlations within and between the predefined domains: intracranial pressure monitoring, coagulation and transfusion, surgery, prophylactic antibiotics, and more general ICU treatment policies. Hierarchical clustering using Ward's minimum variance method was applied to group data with the highest similarity. Heat maps were used to visualize whether hospitals could be grouped to uncover types of hospitals adhering to certain treatment strategies. RESULTS: Provider profiles were available from 66 centers in 20 different countries in Europe and Israel. Correlations within most of the predefined domains varied from low to high correlations (mean correlation coefficients 0.2-0.7). Correlations between domains were lower, with mean correlation coefficients of 0.2. Cluster analysis showed that policies could be grouped, but hospitals could not be grouped based on their preference. CONCLUSIONS: Although correlations between treatment policies within domains were found, the failure to cluster hospitals indicates that a specific treatment choice within a domain is not a proxy for other treatment choices within or outside the domain. These results imply that studying the effects of specific TBI interventions on outcome can be based on between-center variation without being substantially confounded by other treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We do not report the results of a health care intervention.

The burden of traumatic brain injury from low-energy falls among patients from 18 countries in the CENTER-TBI Registry: A comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global public health burden, where those injured by high-energy transfer (e.g., road traffic collisions) are assumed to have more severe injury and are prioritised by emergency medical service trauma triage tools. However recent studies suggest an increasing TBI disease burden in older people injured through low-energy falls. We aimed to assess the prevalence of low-energy falls among patients presenting to hospital with TBI, and to compare their characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes to TBI caused by high-energy trauma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a comparative cohort study utilising the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) Registry, which recorded patient demographics, injury, care pathway, and acute care outcome data in 56 acute trauma receiving hospitals across 18 countries (17 countries in Europe and Israel). Patients presenting with TBI and indications for computed tomography (CT) brain scan between 2014 to 2018 were purposively sampled. The main study outcomes were (i) the prevalence of low-energy falls causing TBI within the overall cohort and (ii) comparisons of TBI patients injured by low-energy falls to TBI patients injured by high-energy transfer-in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, care pathways, and hospital mortality. In total, 22,782 eligible patients were enrolled, and study outcomes were analysed for 21,681 TBI patients with known injury mechanism; 40% (95% CI 39% to 41%) (8,622/21,681) of patients with TBI were injured by low-energy falls. Compared to 13,059 patients injured by high-energy transfer (HE cohort), the those injured through low-energy falls (LE cohort) were older (LE cohort, median 74 [IQR 56 to 84] years, versus HE cohort, median 42 [IQR 25 to 60] years; p < 0.001), more often female (LE cohort, 50% [95% CI 48% to 51%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001), more frequently taking pre-injury anticoagulants or/and platelet aggregation inhibitors (LE cohort, 44% [95% CI 42% to 45%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 11% to 14%]; p < 0.001), and less often presenting with moderately or severely impaired conscious level (LE cohort, 7.8% [95% CI 5.6% to 9.8%], versus HE cohort, 10% [95% CI 8.7% to 12%]; p < 0.001), but had similar in-hospital mortality (LE cohort, 6.3% [95% CI 4.2% to 8.3%], versus HE cohort, 7.0% [95% CI 5.3% to 8.6%]; p = 0.83). The CT brain scan traumatic abnormality rate was 3% lower in the LE cohort (LE cohort, 29% [95% CI 27% to 31%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001); individuals in the LE cohort were 50% less likely to receive critical care (LE cohort, 12% [95% CI 9.5% to 13%], versus HE cohort, 24% [95% CI 23% to 26%]; p < 0.001) or emergency interventions (LE cohort, 7.5% [95% CI 5.4% to 9.5%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 12% to 15%]; p < 0.001) than patients injured by high-energy transfer. The purposive sampling strategy and censorship of patient outcomes beyond hospital discharge are the main study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls are an important component of the TBI disease burden and a distinct demographic cohort; further, our findings suggest that energy transfer may not predict intracranial injury or acute care mortality in patients with TBI presenting to hospital. This suggests that factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people. A specific focus to improve prevention and care for patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls is required.

Use and impact of high intensity treatments in patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis.

PURPOSE: To study variation in, and clinical impact of high Therapy Intensity Level (TIL) treatments for elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) across European Intensive Care Units (ICUs). METHODS: We studied high TIL treatments (metabolic suppression, hypothermia (< 35 °C), intensive hyperventilation (PaCO2 < 4 kPa), and secondary decompressive craniectomy) in patients receiving ICP monitoring in the ICU stratum of the CENTER-TBI study. A random effect logistic regression model was used to determine between-centre variation in their use. A propensity score-matched model was used to study the impact on outcome (6-months Glasgow Outcome Score-extended (GOSE)), whilst adjusting for case-mix severity, signs of brain herniation on imaging, and ICP. RESULTS: 313 of 758 patients from 52 European centres (41%) received at least one high TIL treatment with significant variation between centres (median odds ratio = 2.26). Patients often transiently received high TIL therapies without escalation from lower tier treatments. 38% of patients with high TIL treatment had favourable outcomes (GOSE ≥ 5). The use of high TIL treatment was not significantly associated with worse outcome (285 matched pairs, OR 1.4, 95% CI [1.0-2.0]). However, a sensitivity analysis excluding high TIL treatments at day 1 or use of metabolic suppression at any day did reveal a statistically significant association with worse outcome. CONCLUSION: Substantial between-centre variation in use of high TIL treatments for TBI was found and treatment escalation to higher TIL treatments were often not preceded by more conventional lower TIL treatments. The significant association between high TIL treatments after day 1 and worse outcomes may reflect aggressive use or unmeasured confounders or inappropriate escalation strategies. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Substantial variation was found in the use of highly intensive ICP-lowering treatments across European ICUs and a stepwise escalation strategy from lower to higher intensity level therapy is often lacking. Further research is necessary to study the impact of high therapy intensity treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, registered 08/06/2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02210221?id=NCT02210221&draw=1&rank=1 and with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).

Prehospital Management of Traumatic Brain Injury across Europe: A CENTER-TBI Study.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important to prevent secondary brain injury. We aim to compare prehospital care systems within Europe and investigate the association of system characteristics with the stability of patients at hospital arrival. METHODS: We studied TBI patients who were transported to CENTER-TBI centers, a pan-European, prospective TBI cohort study, by emergency medical services between 2014 and 2017. The association of demographic factors, injury severity, situational factors, and interventions associated with on-scene time was assessed using linear regression. We used mixed effects models to investigate the case mix adjusted variation between countries in prehospital times and interventions. The case mix adjusted impact of on-scene time and interventions on hypoxia (oxygen saturation <90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100mmHg) at hospital arrival was analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 3878 patients, the greatest driver of longer on-scene time was intubation (+8.3 min, 95% CI: 5.6-11.1). Secondary referral was associated with shorter on-scene time (-5.0 min 95% CI: -6.2- -3.8). Between countries, there was a large variation in response (range: 12-25 min), on-scene (range: 16-36 min) and travel time (range: 15-32 min) and in prehospital interventions. These variations were not explained by patient factors such as conscious level or severity of injury (expected OR between countries: 1.8 for intubation, 1.8 for IV fluids, 2.0 for helicopter). On-scene time was not associated with the regional EMS policy (p= 0.58). Hypotension and/or hypoxia were seen in 180 (6%) and 97 (3%) patients in the overall cohort and in 13% and 7% of patients with severe TBI (GCS <8). The largest association with secondary insults at hospital arrival was with major extracranial injury: the OR was 3.6 (95% CI: 2.6-5.0) for hypotension and 4.4 (95% CI: 2.9-6.7) for hypoxia. DISCUSSION: Hypoxia and hypotension continue to occur in patients who suffer a TBI, and remain relatively common in severe TBI. Substantial variation in prehospital care exists for patients after TBI in Europe, which is only partially explained by patient factors.

Understanding the relationship between cognitive performance and function in daily life after traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive impairment is a key cause of disability after traumatic brain injury (TBI) but relationships with overall functioning in daily life are often modest. The aim is to examine cognition at different levels of function and identify domains associated with disability. METHODS: 1554 patients with mild-to-severe TBI were assessed at 6 months post injury on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE), the Short Form-12v2 and a battery of cognitive tests. Outcomes across GOSE categories were compared using analysis of covariance adjusting for age, sex and education. RESULTS: Overall effect sizes were small to medium, and greatest for tests involving processing speed (ηp 2 0.057-0.067) and learning and memory (ηp 2 0.048-0.052). Deficits in cognitive performance were particularly evident in patients who were dependent (GOSE 3 or 4) or who were unable to participate in one or more major life activities (GOSE 5). At higher levels of function (GOSE 6-8), cognitive performance was surprisingly similar across categories. There were decreases in performance even in patients reporting complete recovery without significant symptoms. Medium to large effect sizes were present for summary measures of cognition (ηp 2 0.111), mental health (ηp 2 0.131) and physical health (ηp 2 0.252). CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale study provides novel insights into cognitive performance at different levels of disability and highlights the importance of processing speed in function in daily life. At upper levels of outcome, any influence of cognition on overall function is markedly attenuated and differences in mental health are salient.

Quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury in European intensive care units: a CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe and to study its potential for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS: Our analysis was based on 2006 adult patients admitted to 54 ICUs between 2014 and 2018, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI study. Indicator scores were calculated as percentage adherence for structure and process indicators and as event rates or median scores for outcome indicators. Feasibility was quantified by the completeness of the variables. Discriminability was determined by the between-centre variation, estimated with a random effect regression model adjusted for case-mix severity and quantified by the median odds ratio (MOR). Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was determined by the median number of events per centre, using a cut-off of 10. RESULTS: A total of 26/42 indicators could be calculated from the CENTER-TBI database. Most quality indicators proved feasible to obtain with more than 70% completeness. Sub-optimal adherence was found for most quality indicators, ranging from 26 to 93% and 20 to 99% for structure and process indicators. Significant (p < 0.001) between-centre variation was found in seven process and five outcome indicators with MORs ranging from 1.51 to 4.14. Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was generally high; five out of seven had less than 10 events per centre. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nine structures, five processes, but none of the outcome indicators showed potential for quality improvement purposes for TBI patients in the ICU. Future research should focus on implementation efforts and continuous reevaluation of quality indicators. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, registered on August 06, 2014, with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).

Tracheal intubation in traumatic brain injury: a multicentre prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity. METHODS: Data from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests. RESULTS: In the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower. CONCLUSION: The benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02210221.

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.

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.

Potential of a statistical approach for the standardization of multicenter diffusion tensor data: A phantom study.

BACKGROUND: Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) parameters, such as fractional anisotropy (FA), allow examining the structural integrity of the brain. However, the true value of these parameters may be confounded by variability in MR hardware, acquisition parameters, and image quality. PURPOSE: To examine the effects of confounding factors on FA and to evaluate the feasibility of statistical methods to model and reduce multicenter variability. STUDY TYPE: Longitudinal multicenter study. PHANTOM: DTI single strand phantom (HQ imaging). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T diffusion tensor imaging. ASSESSMENTS: Thirteen European imaging centers participated. DTI scans were acquired every 6 months and whenever maintenance or upgrades to the system were performed. A total of 64 scans were acquired in 2 years, obtained by three scanner vendors, using six individual head coils, and 12 software versions. STATISTICAL TESTS: The variability in FA was assessed by the coefficients of variation (CoV). Several linear mixed effects models (LMEM) were developed and compared by means of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). RESULTS: The CoV was 2.22% for mean FA and 18.40% for standard deviation of FA. The variables "site" (P = 9.26 × 10-5 ), "vendor" (P = 2.18 × 10-5 ), "head coil" (P = 9.00 × 10-4 ), "scanner drift," "bandwidth" (P = 0.033), "TE" (P = 8.20 × 10-6 ), "SNR" (P = 0.029) and "mean residuals" (P = 6.50 × 10-4 ) had a significant effect on the variability in mean FA. The variables "site" (P = 4.00 × 10-4 ), "head coil" (P = 2.00 × 10-4 ), "software" (P = 0.014), and "mean voxel outlier intensity count" (P = 1.10 × 10-4 ) had a significant effect on the variability in standard deviation of FA. The mean FA was best predicted by an LMEM that included "vendor" and the interaction term of "SNR" and "head coil" as model factors (AIC -347.98). In contrast, the standard deviation of FA was best predicted by an LMEM that included "vendor," "bandwidth," "TE," and the interaction term between "SNR" and "head coil" (AIC -399.81). DATA CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that perhaps statistical models seem promising to model the variability in quantitative DTI biomarkers for clinical routine and multicenter studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:955-965.

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators. METHODS: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool. RESULTS: The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%). CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.

Correction to: Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.

The collaborator names are inverted.