Increasing numbers and improved overall survival of patients on kidney replacement therapy over the last decade in Europe: an ERA Registry study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the trends in the incidence, prevalence and survival of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) across Europe from 2008 to 2017. METHODS: Data from renal registries in 9 countries and 16 regions that provided individual patient data to the ERA Registry from 2008 to 2017 were included. These registries cover 34% of the general population in Europe. Crude and standardized incidence and prevalence per million population (pmp) were determined. Trends over time were studied using Joinpoint regression. Survival probabilities were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The standardized incidence of KRT was stable [annual percentage change (APC): -1.48 (-3.15; 0.21)] from 2008 (146.0 pmp) to 2011 (141.6 pmp), followed by a slight increase [APC: 1.01 (0.43; 1.60)] to 148.0 pmp in 2017, although trends in incidence varied across countries. This increase was primarily due to a rise in the incidence of KRT in men older than 65 years. Moreover, as a cause of kidney failure, diabetes mellitus is increasing. The standardized prevalence increased from 2008 (990.0 pmp) to 2017 (1166.8 pmp) [APC: 1.82 (1.75; 1.89)]. Patient survival on KRT improved in the time period 2011-13 compared with 2008-[adjusted HR: 0.94 (0.93; 0.95)]. CONCLUSION: This study showed an overall increase in the incidence and prevalence of KRT for ESKD as well as an increase in the KRT patient survival over the last decade in Europe.

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.

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).

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).

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.

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.

BACKGROUND: General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. METHODS: We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. RESULTS: The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36-40 mmHg (4.8-5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30-35 mmHg (4-4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). CONCLUSIONS: Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome.

Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI. METHODS: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed on the basis of literature and expert opinion, and it was pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately 90% of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomographic abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first- and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as using a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with TBI and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research.

A Transcriptomic Severity Classifier IMX-SEV-3b to Predict Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study.

The prediction of disease outcomes in COVID-19 patients in the ICU is of critical importance, and the examination of host gene expressions is a promising tool. The 29-host mRNA Inflam-matix-Severity-3b (IMX-SEV-3b) classifier has been reported to predict mortality in emergency department COVID-19 patients and surgical ICU patients. The accuracy of the IMX-SEV-3b in predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU is yet unknown. Our aim was to investigate the accuracy of the IMX-SEV-3b in predicting the ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. In addition, we assessed the predictive performance of routinely measured biomarkers and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score as well. This was a prospective observational study enrolling COVID-19 patients who received mechanical ventilation on the ICU of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands. The IMX-SEV-3b scores were generated by amplifying 29 host response genes from blood collected in PAXgene® Blood RNA tubes. A severity score was provided, ranging from 0 to 1 for increasing disease severity. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the IMX-SEV-3b in predicting ICU mortality, and we calculated the AUROC of the IMX-SEV-3b score, the biomarkers C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, ferritin, leukocyte count, interleukin-6 (IL-6), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), procalcitonin (PCT) and the SOFA score. A total of 53 patients were included between 1 March and 30 April 2020, with 47 of them being included within 72 h of their admission to the ICU. Of these, 18 (34%) patients died during their ICU stay, and the IMX-SEV-3b scores were significantly higher in non-survivors compared to survivors (0.65 versus 0.57, p = 0.05). The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) for prediction of ICU mortality by the IMX-SEV-3b was 0.65 (0.48-0.82). The AUROCs of the biomarkers ranged from 0.52 to 0.66, and the SOFA score had an AUROC of 0.81 (0.69-0.93). The AUROC of the pooled biomarkers CRP, D-dimer, ferritin, leukocyte count, IL-6, LDH, NLR and PCT for prediction of ICU mortality was 0.81 (IQR 0.69-0.93). Further validation in a larger interventional trial of a point-of-care version of the IMX-SEV-3b classifier is warranted to determine its value for patient management.

Optimal Dosing and Timing of High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Study Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Multicenter Study (SELECT).

BACKGROUND: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the dosing and timing of corticosteroids vary widely. Low-dose dexamethasone therapy reduces mortality in patients requiring respiratory support, but it remains unclear how to treat patients when this therapy fails. In critically ill patients, high-dose corticosteroids are often administered as salvage late in the disease course, whereas earlier administration may be more beneficial in preventing disease progression. Previous research has revealed that increased levels of various biomarkers are associated with mortality, and whole blood transcriptome sequencing has the ability to identify host factors predisposing to critical illness in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: Our goal is to determine the most optimal dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy and to provide a basis for personalized corticosteroid treatment regimens to reduce morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter study that includes adult patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in the Netherlands. We will use the differences in therapeutic strategies between hospitals (per protocol high-dose corticosteroids or not) over time to determine whether high-dose corticosteroids have an effect on the following outcome measures: mechanical ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula therapy, in-hospital mortality, and 28-day survival. We will also explore biomarker profiles in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and use whole blood transcriptome analysis to determine factors that influence the relationship between high-dose corticosteroids and outcome. Existing databases that contain routinely collected electronic data during ward and intensive care admissions, as well as existing biobanks, will be used. We will apply longitudinal modeling appropriate for each data structure to answer the research questions at hand. RESULTS: As of April 2023, data have been collected for a total of 1500 patients, with data collection anticipated to be completed by December 2023. We expect the first results to be available in early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study protocol presents a strategy to investigate the effect of high-dose corticosteroids throughout the entire clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, from hospital admission to the ward or intensive care unit until hospital discharge. Moreover, our exploration of biomarker and gene expression profiles for targeted corticosteroid therapy represents a first step towards personalized COVID-19 corticosteroid treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05403359; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05403359. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48183.

Pharmaceutical Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Traumatic Brain Injury Patients.

The aims of this study are to describe the use of pharmaceutical venous thromboembolism (pVTE) prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe and study the association of pVTE prophylaxis with outcome. We included 2006 patients ≥18 years of age admitted to the intensive care unit from the CENTER-TBI study. VTE events were recorded based on clinical symptoms. Variation between 54 centers in pVTE prophylaxis use was assessed with a multi-variate random-effect model and quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). The association between pVTE prophylaxis and outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months) was assessed at center level with an instrumental variable analysis and at patient level with a multi-variate proportional odds regression analysis and a propensity-matched analysis. A time-dependent Cox survival regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of pVTE prophylaxis on survival during hospital stay. The association between VTE prophylaxis and computed tomography (CT) progression was assessed with a logistic regression analysis. Overall, 56 patients (2%) had a VTE during hospital stay. The majority, 1279 patients (64%), received pVTE prophylaxis, with substantial between-center variation (MOR, 2.7; p < 0.001). A moderate association with improved outcome was found at center level (odds ratio [OR], 1.2 [0.7-2.1]) and patient level (multi-variate adjusted OR, 1.4 [1.1-1.7], and propensity adjusted OR, 1.5 [1.1-2.0]), with similar results in subgroup analyses. Survival was higher with the use of pVTE prophylaxis (p < 0.001). We found no clear effect on CT progression (OR, 0.9; CI [0.6-1.2]). Overall, practice policies for pVTE prophylaxis vary substantially between European centers, whereas pVTE prophylaxis may contribute to improved outcome. Trial registration number is NCT02210221 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered on August 6, 2014 (first patient enrollment on December 19, 2014).

The ERA Registry Annual Report 2019: summary and age comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Data on renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease were collected by the European Renal Association (ERA) Registry via national and regional renal registries in Europe and countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. This article provides a summary of the 2019 ERA Registry Annual Report, including data from 34 countries and additional age comparisons. METHODS: Individual patient data for 2019 were provided by 35 registries and aggregated data by 17 registries. Using these data, the incidence and prevalence of RRT, the kidney transplantation activity and the survival probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: In 2019, a general population of 680.8 million people was covered by the ERA Registry. Overall, the incidence of RRT was 132 per million population (p.m.p.). Of these patients, 62% were men, 54% were ≥65 years of age and 21% had diabetes mellitus as primary renal disease (PRD), and 84% had haemodialysis (HD), 11% had peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 5% had pre-emptive kidney transplantation as an initial treatment modality. The overall prevalence of RRT on 31 December 2019 was 893 p.m.p., with 58% of patients on HD, 5% on PD and 37% living with a kidney transplant. The overall kidney transplant rate was 35 p.m.p. and 29% of the kidney grafts were from a living donor. The unadjusted 5-year survival probability was 42.3% for patients commencing dialysis, 86.6% for recipients of deceased donor grafts and 94.4% for recipients of living donor grafts in the period 2010-14. When comparing age categories, there were substantial differences in the distribution of PRD, treatment modality and kidney donor type, and in the survival probabilities.

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.

Common Data Elements: Critical Assessment of Harmonization between Current Multi-Center Traumatic Brain Injury Studies.

Standardization and harmonization of data collection in studies on traumatic brain injury (TBI) is of paramount importance for meta-analyses across studies. Nearly 10 years ago, the first set of Common Data Elements for TBI (TBI-CDEs v1) were introduced to achieve these goals. The TBI-CDEs version 2 were developed in 2012 to broaden the approach to all ages, injury severity, and phases of recovery. We aimed to quantify the degree of harmonization of these data elements in three large, prospective multi-center studies conducted within the International Initiative for TBI Research (InTBIR). Data variables of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI; adult and pediatric patients in Europe and Israel), Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI; adult and pediatric patients in the U.S.), and Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI (ADAPT; international study on severe pediatric TBI) studies were indexed and matched to the second version of the TBI CDEs. We focused on the CDE sub-categories of "Acute Hospitalized" (AH) and "Moderate/Severe TBI: Rehabilitation (Rehab). All "Core" and "Basic" level CDEs were considered. Closely related elements were reduced to one variable to prevent over-representation. Categorical elements and text elements for the same variable were likewise merged to one element for analysis. Following reduction and merging of related elements, 21 Core, 46 Basic AH, and 50 Basic Rehab elements were deemed harmonizable across studies. Gaps in global applicability were identified for four of the TBI CDEs and many of the outcome instruments, which are only available in the English language. Agreements of Core and Basic study CDEs for the AH domain with the TBI CDEs were respectively 81% and 91% for CENTER-TBI, 76% and 93% for TRACK-TBI, and 85% in ADAPT for both domains. For the domain Rehab, agreement with Basic TBI CDEs was 84% for CENTER-TBI, 94% for TRACK-TBI, and 71% for ADAPT. Non-harmonization was largely caused by absence of the elements in the studies. For elements present, the compatibility of coding with TBI CDEs was 90-99%. The degree of harmonization was greatest between CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI with 81-87% overlap within the TBI CDE sub-categories. The high degree of harmonization of study variables among these studies demonstrates the importance and utility of common data elements in TBI research. It also confirms the potential for future meta-analyses across these large studies, especially for CENTER TBI and TRACK TBI. The global applicability of the TBI CDEs needs to be improved for them to become a global standard for TBI research. CENTER-TBI, TRACK-TBI, and ADAPT, along with other studies within the InTBIR Initiative, provide a platform to inform further refinement and internationalization for the next version of the TBI CDEs.

Changing care pathways and between-center practice variations in intensive care for traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis.

PURPOSE: To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers. METHODS: This is a prospective observational multicenter study conducted across 18 countries in Europe and Israel. Admission characteristics, clinical data, and outcome were described at patient- and center levels. Between-center variation in the total ICU population was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR), with correction for case-mix and random variation between centers. RESULTS: A total of 2138 patients were admitted to the ICU, with median age of 49 years; 36% of which were mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale; GCS 13-15). Within, 72 h 636 (30%) were discharged and 128 (6%) died. Early deaths and long-stay patients (> 72 h) had more severe injuries based on the GCS and neuroimaging characteristics, compared with short-stay patients. Long-stay patients received more monitoring and were treated at higher intensity, and experienced worse 6-month outcome compared to short-stay patients. Between-center variations were prominent in the proportion of short-stay patients (MOR = 2.3, p < 0.001), use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (MOR = 2.5, p < 0.001) and aggressive treatments (MOR = 2.9, p < 0.001); and smaller in 6-month outcome (MOR = 1.2, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Half of contemporary TBI patients at the ICU have mild to moderate head injury. Substantial between-center variations exist in ICU stay and treatment policies, and less so in outcome. It remains unclear whether admission of short-stay patients represents appropriate prudence or inappropriate use of clinical resources.

Ventricular Drainage Catheters versus Intracranial Parenchymal Catheters for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring-Based Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is one of the mainstays in the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), but different approaches to monitoring exist. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness and complication rate of ventricular drainage (VD) versus intracranial parenchymal (IP) catheters to monitor and treat raised ICP in patients with TBI. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles comparing ICP monitoring-based management with VDs and monitoring with IP monitors through March 2018. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. Outcomes assessed were mortality, functional outcome, need for decompressive craniectomy, length of stay, overall complications, such as infections, and hemorrhage. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random effects models and expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for ordinal outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six studies were included: one randomized controlled trial and five observational cohort studies. Three studies reported mortality, functional outcome, and the need for a surgical decompression, and three only reported complications. The quality of the studies was rated as poor, with critical or serious risk of bias. The pooled analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.60-1.36, p = 0.41) or functional outcome (MD = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.67-1.13, p = 0.61). The complication rate of VDs was higher (RR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.17-5.61, p = 0.02), and consisted mainly of infectious complications; that is, meningitis. VDs caused more complications, particularly more infections, but there was no difference in mortality or functional outcome between the two monitoring modalities. However, the studies had a high risk of bias. A need exists for high quality comparisons of VDs versus IP monitor-based management strategies on patient outcomes.

Variation in Guideline Implementation and Adherence Regarding Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment: A CENTER-TBI Survey Study in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence. METHODS: As part of a prospective, observational, multicenter European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines, and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were "every patient is unique" and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers.

Intensive care admission criteria for traumatic brain injury patients across Europe.

Within a prospective, observational, multi-center cohort study 68 hospitals (of which 66 responded), mostly academic (n = 60, 91%) level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%) in 20 countries were asked to complete questionnaires regarding the "standard of care" for severe neurotrauma patients in their hospitals. From the questionnaire pertaining to ICU management, 12 questions related to admission criteria were selected for this analysis. The questionnaires were completed by 66 centers. The median number of TBI patients admitted to the ICU was 92 [interquartile range (IQR): 52-160] annually. Admission policy varied; in 45 (68%) centers, patients with a Glasgow Come Score (GCS) between 13 and 15 without CT abnormalities but with other risk factors would be admitted to the ICU while the rest indicated that they would not admit these patients routinely to the ICU. We found no association between ICU admission policy and the presence of a dedicated neuro ICU, the discipline in charge of rounds, the presence of step down beds or geographic location (North- Western Europe vs. South - Eastern Europe and Israel). Variation in admission policy, primarily of mild TBI patients to ICU exists, even among high-volume academic centers and seems to be largely independent of other center characteristics. The observed variation suggests a role for comparative effectiveness research to investigate the potential benefit and cost-effectiveness of a liberal versus more restrictive admission policies.

Variation in Blood Transfusion and Coagulation Management in Traumatic Brain Injury at the Intensive Care Unit: A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study.

Our aim was to describe current approaches and to quantify variability between European intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Therefore, we conducted a provider profiling survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The ICU Questionnaire was sent to 68 centers from 20 countries across Europe and Israel. For this study, we used ICU questions focused on 1) hemoglobin target level (Hb-TL), 2) coagulation management, and 3) deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis. Seventy-eight participants, mostly intensivists and neurosurgeons of 66 centers, completed the ICU questionnaire. For ICU-patients, half of the centers (N = 34; 52%) had a defined Hb-TL in their protocol. For patients with TBI, 26 centers (41%) indicated an Hb-TL between 70 and 90 g/L and 38 centers (59%) above 90 g/L. To treat trauma-related hemostatic abnormalities, the use of fresh frozen plasma (N = 48; 73%) or platelets (N = 34; 52%) was most often reported, followed by the supplementation of vitamin K (N = 26; 39%). Most centers reported using DVT prophylaxis with anticoagulants frequently or always (N = 62; 94%). In the absence of hemorrhagic brain lesions, 14 centers (21%) delayed DVT prophylaxis until 72 h after trauma. If hemorrhagic brain lesions were present, the number of centers delaying DVT prophylaxis for 72 h increased to 29 (46%). Overall, a lack of consensus exists between European ICUs on blood transfusion and coagulation management. The results provide a baseline for the CENTER-TBI study, and the large between-center variation indicates multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research.