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.

Minimizing Population Health Loss in Times of Scarce Surgical Capacity During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis and Beyond: A Modeling Study.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 has put unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems worldwide, leading to a reduction of the available healthcare capacity. Our objective was to develop a decision model to estimate the impact of postponing semielective surgical procedures on health, to support prioritization of care from a utilitarian perspective. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model was developed and applied to 43 semielective nonpediatric surgical procedures commonly performed in academic hospitals. Scenarios of delaying surgery from 2 weeks were compared with delaying up to 1 year and no surgery at all. Model parameters were based on registries, scientific literature, and the World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease study. For each surgical procedure, the model estimated the average expected disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per month of delay. RESULTS: Given the best available evidence, the 2 surgical procedures associated with most DALYs owing to delay were bypass surgery for Fontaine III/IV peripheral arterial disease (0.23 DALY/month, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.36) and transaortic valve implantation (0.15 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.09-0.24). The 2 surgical procedures with the least DALYs were placing a shunt for dialysis (0.01, 95% CI: 0.005-0.01) and thyroid carcinoma resection (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02). CONCLUSION: Expected health loss owing to surgical delay can be objectively calculated with our decision model based on best available evidence, which can guide prioritization of surgical procedures to minimize population health loss in times of scarcity. The model results should be placed in the context of different ethical perspectives and combined with capacity management tools to facilitate large-scale implementation.

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.

Brain death and postmortem organ donation: report of a questionnaire from the CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the extent of the agreement on practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. METHODS: Investigators from 67 Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study centers completed several questionnaires (response rate: 99%). RESULTS: Regarding practices around brain death, we found agreement on the clinical evaluation (prerequisites and neurological assessment) for brain death determination (BDD) in 100% of the centers. However, ancillary tests were required for BDD in 64% of the centers. BDD for nondonor patients was deemed mandatory in 18% of the centers before withdrawing life-sustaining measures (LSM). Also, practices around postmortem organ donation varied. Organ donation after circulatory arrest was forbidden in 45% of the centers. When withdrawal of LSM was contemplated, in 67% of centers the patients with a ventricular drain in situ had this removed, either sometimes or all of the time. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed both agreement and some regional differences regarding practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. We hope our results help quantify and understand potential differences, and provide impetus for current dialogs toward further harmonization of practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation.

Comparative Effectiveness of Mannitol Versus Hypertonic Saline in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI Study.

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is one of the most important modifiable and immediate threats to critically ill patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Two hyperosmolar agents (HOAs), mannitol and hypertonic saline (HTS), are routinely used in clinical practice to treat increased ICP. We aimed to assess whether a preference for mannitol, HTS, or their combined use translated into differences in outcome. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study is a prospective multi-center cohort study. For this study, patients with TBI, admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), treated with mannitol and/or HTS, and aged ≥16 years were included. Patients and centers were differentiated based on treatment preference with mannitol and/or HTS based on structured, data-driven criteria such as first administered HOA in the ICU. We assessed influence of center and patient characteristics in the choice of agent using adjusted multi-variate models. Further, we assessed the influence of HOA preference on outcome using adjusted ordinal and logistic regression models, and instrumental variable analyses. In total, 2056 patients were assessed. Of these, 502 (24%) patients received mannitol and/or HTS in the ICU. The first received HOA was HTS for 287 (57%) patients, mannitol for 149 (30%) patients, or both mannitol and HTS on the same day for 66 (13%) patients. Two unreactive pupils were more common in patients receiving both (13, 21%), compared with patients receiving HTS (40, 14%) or mannitol (22, 16%). Center, rather than patient characteristics, was independently associated with the preferred choice of HOA (p-value <0.05). ICU mortality and 6-month outcome were similar between patients preferably treated with mannitol compared with HTS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.0, confidence interval [CI] = 0.4-2.2; OR = 0.9, CI = 0.5-1.6, respectively). Patients who received both also had a similar ICU mortality and 6-month outcome compared with patients receiving HTS (OR = 1.8, CI = 0.7-5.0; OR = 0.6, CI = 0.3-1.7, respectively). We found between-center variability regarding HOA preference. Moreover, we found that center is a more important driver of the choice of HOA than patient characteristics. However, our study indicates that this variability is an acceptable practice given absence of differences in outcomes associated with a specific HOA.

Health care utilization and outcomes in older adults after Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI study.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is increasingly common in older adults aged ≥65 years, forming a growing public health problem. However, older adults are underrepresented in TBI research. Therefore, we aimed to provide an overview of health-care utilization, and of six-month outcomes after TBI and their determinants in older adults who sustained a TBI. METHODS: We used data from the prospective multi-center Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. In-hospital and post-hospital health care utilization and outcomes were described for patients aged ≥65 years. Ordinal and linear regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mental health symptoms six-months post-injury. RESULTS: Of 1254 older patients, 45% were admitted to an ICU with a mean length of stay of 9 days. Nearly 30% of the patients received inpatient rehabilitation. In total, 554/1254 older patients completed the six-month follow-up questionnaires. The mortality rate was 9% after mild and 60% after moderate/severe TBI, and full recovery based on GOSE was reported for 44% of patients after mild and 6% after moderate/severe TBI. Higher age and increased injury severity were primarily associated with functional impairment, while pre-injury systemic disease, psychiatric conditions and lower educational level were associated with functional impairment, lower generic and disease-specific HRQoL and mental health symptoms. CONCLUSION: The rate of impairment and disability following TBI in older adults is substantial, and poorer outcomes across domains are associated with worse preinjury health. Nonetheless, a considerable number of patients fully or partially returns to their preinjury functioning. There should not be pessimism about outcomes in older adults who survive.

Occurrence and timing of withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in traumatic brain injury patients: a CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe brain injury, withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM) is common in intensive care units (ICU). WLSM constitutes a dilemma: instituting WLSM too early could result in death despite the possibility of an acceptable functional outcome, whereas delaying WLSM could unnecessarily burden patients, families, clinicians, and hospital resources. We aimed to describe the occurrence and timing of WLSM, and factors associated with timing of WLSM in European ICUs in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: The CENTER-TBI Study is a prospective multi-center cohort study. For the current study, patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to the ICU and aged 16 or older were included. Occurrence and timing of WLSM were documented. For the analyses, we dichotomized timing of WLSM in early (< 72 h after injury) versus later (≥ 72 h after injury) based on recent guideline recommendations. We assessed factors associated with initiating WLSM early versus later, including geographic region, center, patient, injury, and treatment characteristics with univariable and multivariable (mixed effects) logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2022 patients aged 16 or older were admitted to the ICU. ICU mortality was 13% (n = 267). Of these, 229 (86%) patients died after WLSM, and were included in the analyses. The occurrence of WLSM varied between regions ranging from 0% in Eastern Europe to 96% in Northern Europe. In 51% of the patients, WLSM was early. Patients in the early WLSM group had a lower maximum therapy intensity level (TIL) score than patients in the later WLSM group (median of 5 versus 10) The strongest independent variables associated with early WLSM were one unreactive pupil (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-12.4) or two unreactive pupils (OR 5.8, CI 2.6-13.1) compared to two reactive pupils, and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) if over 41 (OR per point above 41 = 1.1, CI 1.0-1.1). Timing of WLSM was not significantly associated with region or center. CONCLUSION: WLSM occurs early in half of the patients, mostly in patients with severe TBI affecting brainstem reflexes who were severely injured. We found no regional or center influences in timing of WLSM. Whether WLSM is always appropriate or may contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy requires further research and argues for reluctance to institute WLSM early in case of any doubt on prognosis.

Comparison of Care System and Treatment Approaches for Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in China versus Europe: A CENTER-TBI Survey Study.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a huge public health and societal problem worldwide. Uncertainty exists on how care system and treatment approaches for TBI worked in China may differ from those in Europe. Better knowledge on this is important to facilitate interpretation of findings reported by Chinese researchers and to inform opportunities for collaborative studies. We aimed to investigate concordance and variations in TBI care between Chinese and European neurotrauma centers. Investigators from 52 centers in China and 68 in Europe involved in the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study were invited to complete provider profiling (PP) questionnaires, which covered the main aspects of care system and treatment approaches of TBI care. Participating Chinese and European centers were mainly publicly funded and academic. More centers in China indicated available dedicated neuro-intensive care than those in Europe (98% vs. 60%), and treatment decisions in the ICU were mainly determined by neurosurgeons (58%) in China while in Europe, (neuro)intensivists often took the lead (61%). The ambulance dispatching system was automatic in half of Chinese centers (49%), whereas selective dispatching was more common in European centers (74%). For treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension, a decompressive craniectomy was more frequently regarded as general policy in China compared with in Europe (89% vs. 45%). We observed both concordance and substantial variations with regard to the various aspects of TBI care between Chinese and European centers. These findings are fundamental to guide future research and offer opportunities for collaborative comparative effectiveness research to identify best practices.

End-of-life practices in traumatic brain injury patients: Report of a questionnaire from the CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to study variation regarding specific end-of-life (EoL) practices in the intensive care unit (ICU) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Respondents from 67 hospitals participating in The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study completed several questionnaires on management of TBI patients. RESULTS: In 60% of the centers, ≤50% of all patients with severe neurological damage dying in the ICU, die after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (LSM). The decision to withhold/withdraw LSM was made following multidisciplinary consensus in every center. Legal representatives/relatives played a role in the decision-making process in 81% of the centers. In 82% of the centers, age played a role in the decision to withhold/withdraw LSM. Furthermore, palliative therapy was initiated in 79% of the centers after the decision to withdraw LSM was made. Last, withholding/withdrawing LSM was, generally, more often considered after more time had passed, in a patient with TBI, who remained in a very poor prognostic condition. CONCLUSION: We found variation regarding EoL practices in TBI patients. These results provide insight into variability regarding important issues pertaining to EoL practices in TBI, which can be useful to stimulate discussions on EoL practices, comparative effectiveness research, and, ultimately, development of recommendations.

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.