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.

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).

Serum metabolome associated with severity of acute traumatic brain injury

Complex metabolic disruption is a crucial aspect of the pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Associations between this and systemic metabolism and their potential prognostic value are poorly understood. Here, we aimed to describe the serum metabolome (including lipidome) associated with acute TBI within 24 h post-injury, and its relationship to severity of injury and patient outcome. We performed a comprehensive metabolomics study in a cohort of 716 patients with TBI and non-TBI reference patients (orthopedic, internal medicine, and other neurological patients) from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) cohort. We identified panels of metabolites specifically associated with TBI severity and patient outcomes. Choline phospholipids (lysophosphatidylcholines, ether phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins) were inversely associated with TBI severity and were among the strongest predictors of TBI patient outcomes, which was further confirmed in a separate validation dataset of 558 patients. The observed metabolic patterns may reflect different pathophysiological mechanisms, including protective changes of systemic lipid metabolism aiming to maintain lipid homeostasis in the brain.

Challenges Encountered in Surgical Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Need for Methodological Improvement of Future Studies

BACKGROUND

Investigating neurosurgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (TBI) involves complex methodological and practical challenges. In the present report, we have provided an overview of the current state of neurosurgical TBI research and discussed the key challenges and possible solutions.

METHODS

The content of our report was based on an extensive literature review and personal knowledge and expert opinions of senior neurosurgeon researchers and epidemiologists.

RESULTS

Current best practice research strategies include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative effectiveness research. The performance of RCTs has been complicated by the heterogeneity of TBI patient populations with the associated sample size requirements, the traditional eminence-based neurosurgical culture, inadequate research budgets, and the often acutely life-threatening setting of severe TBI. Statistical corrections can mitigate the effects of heterogeneity, and increasing awareness of clinical equipoise and informed consent alternatives can improve trial efficiency. The substantial confounding by indication, which limits the interpretability of observational research, can be circumvented by using an instrumental variable analysis. Traditional TBI outcome measures remain relevant but do not adequately capture the subtleties of well-being, suggesting a need for multidimensional approaches to outcome assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

In settings in which traditional RCTs are difficult to conduct and substantial confounding by indication can be present, observational studies using an instrumental variable analysis and "pragmatic" RCTs are promising alternatives. Embedding TBI research into standard clinical practice should be more frequently considered but will require fundamental modifications to the current health care system. Finally, multimodality outcome assessment will be key to improving future surgical and nonsurgical TBI research.

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.

Blood Biomarkers and Structural Imaging Correlations Post-Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Blood biomarkers are of increasing importance in the diagnosis and assessment of traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the relationship between them and lesions seen on imaging remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the relationship between blood biomarkers and intracranial lesion types, intracranial lesion injury patterns, volume/number of intracranial lesions, and imaging classification systems.

METHODS

We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to May 2021, and the references of included studies were also screened. Heterogeneity in study design, biomarker types, imaging modalities, and analyses inhibited quantitative analysis, with a qualitative synthesis presented.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine papers were included assessing one or more biomarker to imaging comparisons per paper: 30 assessed imaging classifications or injury patterns, 28 assessed lesion type, and 11 assessed lesion volume or number. Biomarker concentrations were associated with the burden of brain injury, as assessed by increasing intracranial lesion volume, increasing numbers of traumatic intracranial lesions, and positive correlations with imaging classification scores. There were inconsistent findings associating different biomarkers with specific imaging phenotypes including diffuse axonal injury, cerebral edema, and intracranial hemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Blood-based biomarker concentrations after TBI are consistently demonstrated to correlate burden of intracranial disease. The relation with specific injury types is unclear suggesting a lack of diagnostic specificity and/or is the result of the complex and heterogeneous nature of TBI.

Relationship of admission blood proteomic biomarkers levels to lesion type and lesion burden in traumatic brain injury: A CENTER-TBI study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to understand the relationship between serum biomarker concentration and lesion type and volume found on computed tomography (CT) following all severities of TBI.

METHODS

Concentrations of six serum biomarkers (GFAP, NFL, NSE, S100B, t-tau and UCH-L1) were measured in samples obtained <24 hours post-injury from 2869 patients with all severities of TBI, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI prospective cohort study (NCT02210221). Imaging phenotypes were defined as intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH), oedema, subdural haematoma (SDH), extradural haematoma (EDH), traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (tSAH), diffuse axonal injury (DAI), and intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH). Multivariable polynomial regression was performed to examine the association between biomarker levels and both distinct lesion types and lesion volumes. Hierarchical clustering was used to explore imaging phenotypes; and principal component analysis and k-means clustering of acute biomarker concentrations to explore patterns of biomarker clustering.

FINDINGS

2869 patient were included, 68% (n=1946) male with a median age of 49 years (range 2-96). All severities of TBI (mild, moderate and severe) were included for analysis with majority (n=1946, 68%) having a mild injury (GCS 13-15). Patients with severe diffuse injury (Marshall III/IV) showed significantly higher levels of all measured biomarkers, with the exception of NFL, than patients with focal mass lesions (Marshall grades V/VI). Patients with either DAI+IVH or SDH+IPH+tSAH, had significantly higher biomarker concentrations than patients with EDH. Higher biomarker concentrations were associated with greater volume of IPH (GFAP, S100B, t-tau;adj r2 range:0·48-0·49; p<0·05), oedema (GFAP, NFL, NSE, t-tau, UCH-L1;adj r2 range:0·44-0·44; p<0·01), IVH (S100B;adj r2 range:0.48-0.49; p<0.05), Unsupervised k-means biomarker clustering revealed two clusters explaining 83·9% of variance, with phenotyping characteristics related to clinical injury severity.

INTERPRETATION

Interpretation: Biomarker concentration within 24 hours of TBI is primarily related to severity of injury and intracranial disease burden, rather than pathoanatomical type of injury.

FUNDING

CENTER-TBI is funded by the European Union 7th Framework programme (EC grant 602150).

Questionnaires vs Interviews for the Assessment of Global Functional Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury

IMPORTANCE

An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point.

OBJECTIVE

To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury.

EXPOSURES

Traumatic brain injury of all severities.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms.

RESULTS

Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews.

The Impact of Neurocognitive Functioning on the Course of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms following Civilian Traumatic Brain Injury

Background: One out of seven individuals who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) develops a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is often associated with neurocognitive impairment. The present study explores the impact of neurocognitive functioning after mild, moderate, and severe TBI on the course of PTSD symptoms. Methods: The data of 671 adults admitted to hospital for a TBI was drawn from the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) study. After six- and 12-months post-injury, participants completed the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5), from which change scores were calculated. At six months, participants also completed a neurocognitive assessment including the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the Trail Making Test, and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). Linear regressions were performed to identify associations between cognitive functioning and PCL-5 change scores. Results: Overall, mean PCL-5 change scores showed no clear change (−0.20 ± 9.88), but 87 improved and 80 deteriorated by a change score of 10 or more. CANTAB Rapid Visual Information Processing scores were significantly associated with PCL-5 change scores. Conclusions: Strong sustained attention was associated with improvement in PTSD symptoms. Assessing cognitive performance may help identify individuals at risk of developing (persisting) PTSD post-TBI and offer opportunities for informing treatment strategies.

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.

Characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with severe traumatic brain injury in Victoria, Australia compared to United Kingdom and Europe: A comparison between two harmonised prospective cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this manuscript is to compare characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) between Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with severe TBI in Victoria, Australia (OzENTER-TBI), in the UK and Europe (CENTER-TBI) from 2015 to 2017. Main outcome measures were mortality and unfavourable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended <5) 6 months after injury. Expected outcomes were compared according to the IMPACT-CT prognostic model, with observed to expected (O/E) ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

We included 107 patients from Australia, 171 from UK, and 596 from Europe. Compared to the UK and Europe, patients in Australia were younger (median 32 vs 44 vs 44 years), a larger proportion had secondary brain insults including hypotension (30% vs 17% vs 21%) and a larger proportion received ICP monitoring (75% vs 74% vs 58%). Hospital length of stay was shorter in Australia than in the UK (median: 17 vs 23 vs 16 days), and a higher proportion of patients were discharged to a rehabilitation unit in Australia than in the UK and Europe (64% vs 26% vs 28%). Mortality overall was lower than expected (27% vs 35%, O/E ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64 - 0.87]. O/E ratios were comparable between regions for mortality in Australia 0.86 [95% CI: 0.49-1.23] vs UK 0.82 [0.51-1.15] vs Europe 0.76 [0.60-0.87]). Unfavourable outcome rates overall were in line with historic expectations (O/E ratio 1.32 [0.96-1.68] vs 1.13 [0.84-1.42] vs 0.96 [0.85-1.09]).

CONCLUSIONS

There are major differences in case-mix between Australia, UK, and Europe; Australian patients are younger and have a higher rate of secondary brain insults. Despite some differences in management and discharge policies, mortality was less than expected overall, and did not differ between regions. Functional outcomes were similar between regions, but worse than expected, emphasizing the need to improve treatment for patients with severe TBI.

Imputation strategies for missing baseline neurological assessment covariates after traumatic brain injury: A CENTER-TBI study

Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial covariates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However, it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo-R² of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score—extended) using different imputation strategies on the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study dataset. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness (<< 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. While model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy, this effect was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: the pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.

Primary versus early secondary referral to a specialized neurotrauma center in patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a CENTER TBI study

Background

Prehospital care for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) varies with some emergency medical systems recommending direct transport of patients with moderate to severe TBI to hospitals with specialist neurotrauma care (SNCs). The aim of this study is to assess variation in levels of early secondary referral within European SNCs and to compare the outcomes of directly admitted and secondarily transferred patients.

Methods

Patients with moderate and severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale < 13) from the prospective European CENTER-TBI study were included in this study. All participating hospitals were specialist neuroscience centers. First, adjusted between-country differences were analysed using random effects logistic regression where early secondary referral was the dependent variable, and a random intercept for country was included. Second, the adjusted effect of early secondary referral on survival to hospital discharge and functional outcome [6 months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE)] was estimated using logistic and ordinal mixed effects models, respectively.

Results

A total of 1347 moderate/severe TBI patients from 53 SNCs in 18 European countries were included. Of these 1347 patients, 195 (14.5%) were admitted after early secondary referral. Secondarily referred moderate/severe TBI patients presented more often with a CT abnormality: mass lesion (52% vs. 34%), midline shift (54% vs. 36%) and acute subdural hematoma (77% vs. 65%). After adjusting for case-mix, there was a large European variation in early secondary referral, with a median OR of 1.69 between countries. Early secondary referral was not associated with functional outcome (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78–1.69), nor with survival at discharge (1.05, 0.58–1.90).

Conclusions

Across Europe, substantial practice variation exists in the proportion of secondarily referred TBI patients at SNCs that is not explained by case mix. Within SNCs early secondary referral does not seem to impact functional outcome and survival after stabilisation in a non-specialised hospital. Future research should identify which patients with TBI truly benefit from direct transportation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00930-1.

Pathological Computed Tomography Features Associated With Adverse Outcomes After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study With External Validation in CENTER-TBI

Question

Are different patterns of intracranial injury on head computed tomography associated with prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)?

Findings

In this cohort study, subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, and contusion often co-occurred and were associated with both incomplete recovery and more severe impairment out to 12 months after injury, while intraventricular and/or petechial hemorrhage co-occurred and were associated with more severe impairment up to 12 months after injury; epidural hematoma was associated with incomplete recovery at some points but not with more severe impairment. Some intracranial hemorrhage patterns were more strongly associated with outcomes than previously validated demographic and clinical variables.

Meaning

In this study, different pathological features on head computed tomography carried different implications for mild traumatic brain injury prognosis to 1 year.

Importance

A head computed tomography (CT) with positive results for acute intracranial hemorrhage is the gold-standard diagnostic biomarker for acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). In moderate to severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] scores 3-12), some CT features have been shown to be associated with outcomes. In mild TBI (mTBI; GCS scores 13-15), distribution and co-occurrence of pathological CT features and their prognostic importance are not well understood.

Objective

To identify pathological CT features associated with adverse outcomes after mTBI.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The longitudinal, observational Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study enrolled patients with TBI, including those 17 years and older with GCS scores of 13 to 15 who presented to emergency departments at 18 US level 1 trauma centers between February 26, 2014, and August 8, 2018, and underwent head CT imaging within 24 hours of TBI. Evaluations of CT imaging used TBI Common Data Elements. Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) scores were assessed at 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. External validation of results was performed via the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Data analyses were completed from February 2020 to February 2021.

Exposures

Acute nonpenetrating head trauma.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Frequency, co-occurrence, and clustering of CT features; incomplete recovery (GOSE scores <8 vs 8); and an unfavorable outcome (GOSE scores <5 vs ≥5) at 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

In 1935 patients with mTBI (mean [SD] age, 41.5 [17.6] years; 1286 men [66.5%]) in the TRACK-TBI cohort and 2594 patients with mTBI (mean [SD] age, 51.8 [20.3] years; 1658 men [63.9%]) in an external validation cohort, hierarchical cluster analysis identified 3 major clusters of CT features: contusion, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and/or subdural hematoma; intraventricular and/or petechial hemorrhage; and epidural hematoma. Contusion, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and/or subdural hematoma features were associated with incomplete recovery (odds ratios [ORs] for GOSE scores <8 at 1 year: TRACK-TBI, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.39-2.33]; CENTER-TBI, 2.73 [95% CI, 2.18-3.41]) and greater degrees of unfavorable outcomes (ORs for GOSE scores <5 at 1 year: TRACK-TBI, 3.23 [95% CI, 1.59-6.58]; CENTER-TBI, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.13-2.49]) out to 12 months after injury, but epidural hematoma was not. Intraventricular and/or petechial hemorrhage was associated with greater degrees of unfavorable outcomes up to 12 months after injury (eg, OR for GOSE scores <5 at 1 year in TRACK-TBI: 3.47 [95% CI, 1.66-7.26]). Some CT features were more strongly associated with outcomes than previously validated variables (eg, ORs for GOSE scores <5 at 1 year in TRACK-TBI: neuropsychiatric history, 1.43 [95% CI .98-2.10] vs contusion, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and/or subdural hematoma, 3.23 [95% CI 1.59-6.58]). Findings were externally validated in 2594 patients with mTBI enrolled in the CENTER-TBI study.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, pathological CT features carried different prognostic implications after mTBI to 1 year postinjury. Some patterns of injury were associated with worse outcomes than others. These results support that patients with mTBI and these CT features need TBI-specific education and systematic follow-up.

Translation and Linguistic Validation of Outcome Instruments for Traumatic Brain Injury Research and Clinical Practice: A Step-by-Step Approach within the Observational CENTER-TBI Study

Assessing outcomes in multinational studies on traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses major challenges and requires relevant instruments in languages other than English. Of the 19 outcome instruments selected for use in the observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study, 17 measures lacked translations in at least one target language. To fill this gap, we aimed to develop well-translated linguistically and psychometrically validated instruments. We performed translations and linguistic validations of patient-reported measures (PROMs), clinician-reported (ClinRO), and performance-based (PerfO) outcome instruments, using forward and backward translations, reconciliations, cognitive debriefings with up to 10 participants, iterative revisions, and international harmonization with input from over 150 international collaborators. In total, 237 translations and 211 linguistic validations were carried out in up to 20 languages. Translations were evaluated at the linguistic and cultural level by coding changes when the original versions are compared with subsequent translation steps, using the output of cognitive debriefings, and using comprehension rates. The average comprehension rate per instrument varied from 88% to 98%, indicating a good quality of the translations. These outcome instruments provide a solid basis for future TBI research and clinical practice and allow the aggregation and analysis of data across different countries and languages.

Psychometric Characteristics of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Applied in the CENTER-TBI Study

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) may lead to impairments in various outcome domains. Since most instruments assessing these are only available in a limited number of languages, psychometrically validated translations are important for research and clinical practice. Thus, our aim was to investigate the psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) applied in the CENTER-TBI study. The study sample comprised individuals who filled in the six-months assessments (GAD-7, PHQ-9, PCL-5, RPQ, QOLIBRI/-OS, SF-36v2/-12v2). Classical psychometric characteristics were investigated and compared with those of the original English versions. The reliability was satisfactory to excellent; the instruments were comparable to each other and to the original versions. Validity analyses demonstrated medium to high correlations with well-established measures. The original factor structure was replicated by all the translations, except for the RPQ, SF-36v2/-12v2 and some language samples for the PCL-5, most probably due to the factor structure of the original instruments. The translation of one to two items of the PHQ-9, RPQ, PCL-5, and QOLIBRI in three languages could be improved in the future to enhance scoring and application at the individual level. Researchers and clinicians now have access to reliable and valid instruments to improve outcome assessment after TBI in national and international health care.

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).

Outcome Prediction after Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: External Validation of Two Established Prognostic Models in 1742 European Patients

The International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models predict functional outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We aimed to assess their performance in a contemporary cohort of patients across Europe. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) core study is a prospective, observational cohort study in patients presenting with TBI and an indication for brain computed tomography. The CENTER-TBI core cohort consists of 4509 TBI patients available for analyses from 59 centers in 18 countries across Europe and Israel. The IMPACT validation cohort included 1173 patients with GCS ≤12, age ≥14, and 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) available. The CRASH validation cohort contained 1742 patients with GCS ≤14, age ≥16, and 14-day mortality or 6-month GOSE available. Performance of the three IMPACT and two CRASH model variants was assessed with discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC) and calibration (comparison of observed vs. predicted outcome rates). For IMPACT, model discrimination was good, with AUCs ranging between 0.77 and 0.85 in 1173 patients and between 0.80 and 0.88 in the broader CRASH selection (n = 1742). For CRASH, AUCs ranged between 0.82 and 0.88 in 1742 patients and between 0.66 and 0.80 in the stricter IMPACT selection (n = 1173). Calibration of the IMPACT and CRASH models was generally moderate, with calibration-in-the-large and calibration slopes ranging between -2.02 and 0.61 and between 0.48 and 1.39, respectively. The IMPACT and CRASH models adequately identify patients at high risk for mortality or unfavorable outcome, which supports their use in research settings and for benchmarking in the context of quality-of-care assessment.

Prediction of Global Functional Outcome and Post-Concussive Symptoms after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: External Validation of Prognostic Models in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study

The majority of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are categorized as mild, according to a baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13-15. Prognostic models that were developed to predict functional outcome and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS) after mild TBI have rarely been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate models predicting 3-12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or PPCS in adults with mild TBI. We analyzed data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project, which included 2862 adults with mild TBI, with 6-month GOSE available for 2374 and Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) results available for 1605 participants. Model performance was evaluated based on calibration (graphically and characterized by slope and intercept) and discrimination (C-index). We validated five published models for 6-month GOSE and three for 6-month PPCS scores. The models used different cutoffs for outcome and some included symptoms measured 2 weeks post-injury. Discriminative ability varied substantially (C-index between 0.58 and 0.79). The models developed in the Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) trial for prediction of GOSE <5 discriminated best (C-index 0.78 and 0.79), but were poorly calibrated. The best performing models for PPCS included 2-week symptoms (C-index 0.75 and 0.76). In conclusion, none of the prognostic models for early prediction of GOSE and PPCS has both good calibration and discrimination in persons with mild TBI. In future studies, prognostic models should be tailored to the population with mild TBI, predicting relevant end-points based on readily available predictors.