Reduction in unnecessary CT scans for head-injury in the emergency department using an FDA cleared device

An Evaluation of the Emerging Techniques in Sports-Related Concussion

SUMMARY

Sports-related concussion is now in public awareness more than ever before. Investigations into underlying pathophysiology and methods of assessment have correspondingly increased at an exponential rate. In this review, we aim to highlight some of the evidence supporting emerging techniques in the fields of neurophysiology, neuroimaging, vestibular, oculomotor, autonomics, head sensor, and accelerometer technology in the setting of the current standard: clinical diagnosis and management. In summary, the evidence we reviewed suggests that (1) head impact sensors and accelerometers may detect possible concussions that would not otherwise receive evaluation; (2) clinical diagnosis may be aided by sideline vestibular, oculomotor, and portable EEG techniques; (3) clinical decisions on return-to-play eligibility are currently not sensitive at capturing the neurometabolic, cerebrovascular, neurophysiologic, and microstructural changes that biomarkers have consistently detected days and weeks after clinical clearance. Such biomarkers include heart rate variability, quantitative electroencephalography, as well as functional, metabolic, and microstructural neuroimaging. The current challenge is overcoming the lack of consistency and replicability of any one particular technique to reach consensus.

Neurophysiological Markers to Guide Return to Sport After Sport-Related Concussion

SUMMARY

Sport-related concussion (SRC) has been defined as a subset of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), without structural abnormalities, reflecting a functional disturbance. Over the past decade, SRC has gained increasing awareness and attention, which coincides with an increase in incidence rates. Because this injury has been considered one of the most challenging encounters for clinicians, there is a need for objective biomarkers to aid in diagnosis (i.e., presence/severity) and management (i.e., return to sport) of SRC/mTBI.The primary aim of this article was to present state-of-the-art neurophysiologic methods (e.g., electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and autonomic nervous system) that are appropriate to investigate the complex pathophysiological process of a concussion. A secondary aim was to explore the potential for evidence-based markers to be used in clinical practice for SRC management. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for SRC research with specific focus on clinical neurophysiology.

A Biomarker for Concussion: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, and disability in the US, with >2.8 million patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) annually. However, the diagnosis of TBI is challenging and presents a number of difficulties, particularly at the mildest end of the spectrum: concussion. A number of groups have researched biomarkers to aid in the evaluation of TBI, and most recently in 2018 the Food and Drug Administration approved a new blood-based immunoassay biomarker using ubiquitin carboxyl hydrolase L1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein to aid in head computed tomography (CT) triage.

CONTENT

This review clarifies the practical challenges in assessing and implementing a new blood biomarker. It then examines the clinical context and need, as well as the evidence used to validate this new immunoassay.

SUMMARY

Concussion is a multifaceted diagnosis with a need for biomarkers to assist in diagnostic and prognostic assessment. Recent articles in the lay press have revealed misunderstanding about the function of this new test, expressing hopes that this biomarker serves patients at the mildest end of the spectrum and is useful for athletes and children. None of these assumptions are correct, as this biomarker has been evaluated in patients only at the moderate end of the spectrum and has been validated only in adults presenting to the ED who have already been triaged to receive head CT, not in athletes or children. The next steps for this assay should consider clinical work flow and clarifying its intended use, including integration with existing triage methods, and validating the assay for a broader population.

An Observation of Application of Structural Brain Injury Devices for Traumatic Brain Injury Evaluation in Austere Military Prehospital Settings

INTRODUCTION

Military units lack the ability to quickly, objectively, and accurately assess individuals that have suffered a closed head injury for structural brain injury and functional brain impairments in forward settings, where neurological assessment equipment and expertise may be lacking. With acute traumatic brain injury patients, detached medical providers are often faced with a decision to wait and observe or medically evacuate, both of which have cascading consequences. Structural brain injury assessment devices, when employed in forward environments, have the potential to reduce the risk of undiagnosed and/or mismanaged traumatic brain injuries given their high negative predictive value and suggested increased specificity compared to common subjective clinical decision rules. These handheld devices are portable and have an ease of use, from combat medic to physician, allowing for use in austere environments, safely keeping soldiers with their teams when able and suggesting further evaluation via computed tomography (CT) scan when warranted.

METHODS

Data collected on 13 encounters at 5 locations were retrospectively analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total number of 13 examinations were performed using the BrainScope One device during the 9-month deployment. The Structural Injury Classification was negative for 11 of the patients. Two of the 11 patients underwent head CT scans, which confirmed the absence of intracranial hemorrhage. Of the two positive Structural Injury Classification exams, one was CT negative and no CT was performed for the other based on clinical judgment.

CONCLUSION

The data from this study suggest that structural brain injury devices may provide value by ruling out serious brain injury pathology while limiting excessive medical evacuations from austere settings, where neurological assessment equipment and expertise may be lacking, reducing unnecessary head CT scans.