Traumatic Minor Intracranial Hemorrhage: Management by Non-neurosurgeon Consultants in a Regional Trauma Center is Safe and Effective

External validation of the updated Brain Injury Guidelines for complicated mild traumatic brain injuries: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 10% of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have intracranial bleeding (complicated mTBI) and 3.5% eventually require neurosurgical intervention, which is mostly available at centers with a higher level of trauma care designation and often requires interhospital transfer. In 2018, the Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) were updated in the United States to guide emergency department care and patient disposition for complicated mild to moderate TBI. The aim of this study was to validate the sensitivity and specificity of the updated BIG (uBIG) for predicting the need for interhospital transfer in Canadian patients with complicated mTBI.

METHODS

This study took place at three level I trauma centers. Consecutive medical records of patients with complicated mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15) who were aged ≥ 16 years and presented between September 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a penetrating trauma and those who had a documented cerebral tumor or aneurysm were excluded. The primary outcome was a combination of neurosurgical intervention and/or mTBI-related death. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 477 patients were included, of whom 8.4% received neurosurgical intervention and 3% died as a result of their mTBI. Forty patients (8%) were classified as uBIG-1, 168 (35%) as uBIG-2, and 269 (56%) as uBIG-3. No patients in uBIG-1 underwent neurosurgical intervention or died as a result of their injury. This translates into a sensitivity for predicting the need for a transfer of 100% (95% CI 93.2%-100%) and a specificity of 9.4% (95% CI 6.8%-12.6%). Using the uBIG could potentially reduce the number of transfers by 6% to 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients in uBIG-1 could be safely managed at their initial center without the need for transfer to a center with a higher level of neurotrauma care. Although the uBIG could decrease the number of transfers, further refinement of the criteria could improve its specificity.

The Impact of Preinjury Use of Antiplatelet Drugs on Outcomes of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The study aimed to compare outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in patients on pre-injury antiplatelet drugs vs. those, not on any antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched up to 15th May 2021. All cohort studies comparing outcomes of TBI between antiplatelet users vs. non-users were included.

Results

Twenty studies were included. On comparison of data of 2,447 patients on pre-injury antiplatelet drugs with 4,814 controls, our analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in early mortality between the two groups (OR: 1.30 95% CI: 0.85, 1.98 I² = 80% p = 0.23). Meta-analysis of adjusted data also revealed no statistically significant difference in early mortality between antiplatelet users vs. controls (OR: 1.24 95% CI: 0.93, 1.65 I² = 41% p = 0.14). Results were similar for subgroup analysis of aspirin users and clopidogrel users. Data on functional outcomes was scarce and only descriptive analysis could be carried out. For the need for surgical intervention, pooled analysis did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 1.11 95% CI: 0.83, 1.48 I² = 55% p = 0.50). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was also not found to be significantly different between antiplatelet users vs. non-users (MD: −1.00 95% CI: −2.17, 0.17 I² = 97% p = 0.09).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that patients on pre-injury antiplatelet drugs do not have worse early mortality rates as compared to patients, not on any antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs. The use of antiplatelets is not associated with an increased need for neurosurgical intervention and prolonged LOS.

Understanding secondary overtriage for neurosurgical patients in a rural tertiary care setting

OBJECTIVE

Excessive interfacility transfer to a tertiary care facility of minimally injured patients for subspecialty evaluation leads to overuse of resources and is referred to as secondary overtriage (SO). Little is known regarding the epidemiology of SO in rural settings, particularly for patients with a mild head injury who may be safely managed without admission to level I trauma centers.

METHODS

In order to determine the rate of SO for neurosurgical patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13-15 referred to a rural level 1 trauma center, we conducted a retrospective chart review of 224 patients evaluated for potential transfer to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. SO was defined as any admission where a patient was transferred from an outside facility, had a length of stay shorter than 48 h, did not require neurosurgical intervention, and was alive at the time of discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 224 patients evaluated, 163 patients were transferred. Of the 163 patients included in this study, 43 (26.4%) met criteria for SO, 59 (36.2%) patients met criteria for intervention, and 61 (37.2%) patients met criteria for observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately a quarter of the total patients who are transferred to a rural level I trauma center for neurosurgical evaluation are minimally injured, do not require neurosurgical intervention, and are discharged within 48 h of presentation. Management at their referring facility with remote neurosurgical consultation is likely safe in this population. Understanding the rate of SO in neurosurgical patients and risk factors present in this group can better guide future transfer policies at rural medical centers.

Retrospective analysis of small intracranial hemorrhage in trauma: Is acute care surgery team management alone safe?

Background: The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) provide a validated framework for categorizing patients with small intracranial haemorrhages (ICH) who could be managed by acute care surgery without neurosurgical consultation or repeat head computed tomography in the absence of neurological deterioration. This replication study retrospectively applied BIG criteria to ICH subjects and only included BIG1 and BIG2 subjects.Methods: The trauma registry was queried from 2014 to 2019 for subjects with a traumatic ICH <1 cm, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14/15 and not on anticoagulation therapy. Patients were then categorized under BIG 1 or BIG2 and outcomes were evaluated.Results: Two hundred fourteen subjects were reviewed (88 BIG1 and 126 BIG2). Twenty-three subjects had worse repeat imaging, but only one had worsening exam that resolved spontaneously. None required neurosurgical intervention. One died of non-neurological causes.Conclusions: Retrospective analysis supported our hypothesis that patients categorized as BIG1 or BIG2 could have been safely managed by acute care surgeons without neurosurgical consultation or repeat head imaging. A review of minor worsening on repeat imaging without changes in neurological exams and no need for neurosurgical interventions supports this evidence-based approach to the management of small intracranial haemorrhages.

Mild Head Trauma: Is Antiplatelet Therapy a Risk Factor for Hemorrhagic Complications?

Background and objectives: In patients who receive antiplatelet therapy (APT), the bleeding risk profile after mild head trauma (MHT) still needs clarification. Some studies have demonstrated an association with bleeding risk, whereas others have not. We studied the population of our level II emergency department (ED) trauma center to determine the risk of bleeding in patients receiving APT and whether bleeding results not from antiplatelet agents but rather from age. We assessed the bleeding risk, the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) that necessitated hospitalization for observation, the need for cranial neurosurgery, the severity of the patient's condition at discharge, and the frequency of ED revisits for head trauma in patients receiving APT. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 483 patients receiving APT who were in the ED for MHT in 2019. The control group consisted of 1443 patients in the ED with MHT over the same period who were not receiving APT or anticoagulant therapy. Our ED diagnostic therapeutic protocol mandates both triage and the medical examination to identify patients with MHT who are taking any anticoagulant or APT. Results: APT was not significantly associated with bleeding risk (p > 0.05); as a risk factor, age was significantly associated with the risk of bleeding, even after adjustment for therapy. Patients receiving APT had a greater need of surgery (1.2% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.0001) and a higher rate of hospitalization (52.9% vs. 37.4%; p < 0.0001), and their clinical condition was more severe (evaluated according to the exit code value on a one-dimensional quantitative five-point numerical scale) at the time of discharge (p = 0.013). The frequency of ED revisits due to head trauma did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions: The risk of bleeding in patients receiving APT who had MHT was no higher than that in the control group. However, the clinical condition of patients receiving APT, including hospital admission for ICH monitoring and cranial neurosurgical interventions, was more severe.