Not every trauma patient with a radiographic head injury requires transfer for neurosurgical evaluation: Application of the brain injury guidelines to patients transferred to a level 1 trauma center

A Criteria to Reduce Interhospital Transfer of Traumatic Brain Injuries in Greater East Texas

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to single-level falls (SLF) are frequent and often require interhospital transfer. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the safety of a criteria for non-transfer among a subset of TBI patients who could be observed at their local hospital, vs mandatory transfer to a level 1 trauma center (L1TC).

METHODS

We conducted a 7-year review of patients with TBI due to SLF at a rural L1TC. Patients were classified as transfer/non-transfer according to the Brain Injuries in Greater East Texas (BIGTEX) criteria. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of a critical event defined as deteriorating repeat head computed tomography (CT) scan or neurological status, neurosurgical intervention, or death.

RESULTS

Of the 689 included patients, 63 (9.1%) were classified as non-transfer. Although there were 4 cases with a neurological change and one with a head CT change among the non-transfer group, there were no neurosurgical procedures or deaths. The Cox Proportional Hazard model showed a near 3-fold increased risk of experiencing a critical event if classified as a non-transfer. The multivariable regression model showed patients with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of 3 was twice as likely to experience a critical event, with an AIS of 4, three times, and 3 times more likely to be classified to transfer.

DISCUSSION

The BIGTEX criteria identify a subset of patients who can safely be observed at their local hospital. To confirm the safety and efficacy of this transfer criteria recommendation, a prospective study is warranted.

Leveraging an EHR tool to improve provider adherence to the modified brain injury guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to leverage electronic health record (EHR) smartphrases to improve compliance with the modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG).

METHODS

Smartphrases were developed for the trauma team and radiology and implemented December 2022. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients meeting mBIG inclusion from 03/2021- 07/2023 were reviewed. Smartphrase usage and clinical compliance with mBIG (measured by percent reduction of repeat head imaging, ICU admissions, and neurosurgery consults) were compared pre- and post-intervention.

RESULTS

268 cases were examined. Post-intervention, mBIG1 patients had significantly fewer neurosurgery consults (82.4 ​% vs. 50.0 ​%, OR ​= ​0.21, p ​= ​0.03), while mBIG2 patients had significantly fewer repeat head CTs (91.0 ​% vs. 66.7 ​%, OR ​= ​0.2, p ​= ​0.01), ICU admissions (66.7 ​% vs. 38.5 ​%, OR ​= ​0.31, p ​= ​0.02) and neurosurgery consults (93.9 ​% vs. 56.4 ​%, OR ​= ​0.08, p ​< ​0.01).

CONCLUSION

Standardized smartphrases can streamline workflow and significantly improve trauma team compliance with best practice guidelines for TBI and reduce unnecessary imaging, consults, and costly ICU admissions.

Application of Brain Injury Guidelines at a Pediatric Level 1 Trauma Center predicts reliability, safety, and improved resource utilization

PURPOSE

Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) have been established to guide management related to TBI in adults. Here, BIG criteria were applied to pediatric TBI patients to evaluate reliability, safety, and resource utilization.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on all pediatric TBI patients aged 18 years or younger from January 2012 to July 2023 at a Level 1 Pediatric Trauma Center. The severity of TBI (BIG 1/2/3) was rated by review of initial cranial imaging by two independent observers. Inter-observer reliability was assessed. Predictions based on BIG criteria regarding repeat cranial imaging, ICU admission, and neurosurgical consultation were compared with observations from the cohort. Outcome data was collected, including neurosurgical intervention and mortality rate.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-nine patients were included with mean age of 5.3 years. Injury severity included 44 BIG 1 (12.2%), 170 BIG 2 (47.4%), and 145 BIG 3 injuries (40.4%). Inter-rater reliability was 96.4%. Neurosurgical consultation was obtained in all patients, though only predicted by guidelines in 40.4%. Repeat imaging was obtained in 166 BIG 1/2 patients, with an average of 1.3 CT scans and 0.8 MRIs/rapid MRIs per patient. ICU was utilized in 104 (77.6%) patients not recommended per BIG criteria. Ultimately, 37 patients, all BIG 3, required neurosurgical intervention; no neurosurgical interventions were required in those classified as BIG 1/2.

CONCLUSIONS

BIG criteria can be applied to pediatric TBI with high inter-observer reliability and without formal neurosurgical training. Retrospective application of BIG predicted fewer imaging studies, ICU admissions, and neurosurgical consults without overlooking patients requiring neurosurgical intervention.

The Florida Geriatric Head Trauma CT Clinical Decision Rule

BACKGROUND

Several clinical decision rules have been devised to guide head computed tomography (CT) use in patients with minor head injuries, but none have been validated in patients 65 years or older. We aimed to derive and validate a head injury clinical decision rule for older adults.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of an existing dataset of consecutive emergency department (ED) patients >65 years old with blunt head trauma. The main predictive outcomes were significant intracranial injury and Need for Neurosurgical Intervention on CT. The secondary outcomes also considered in the model development and validation were All Injuries and All Intracranial Injuries. Predictor variables were identified using multiple variable logistic regression, and clinical decision rule models were developed in a split-sample derivation cohort and then tested in an independent validation cohort.

RESULTS

Of 5776 patients, 233 (4.0%) had significant intracranial injury and an additional 104 (1.8%) met CT criteria for Need for Neurosurgical Intervention. The best performing model, the Florida Geriatric Head Trauma CT Clinical Decision Rule, assigns points based on several clinical variables. If the points totaled 25 or more, a CT scan is indicated. The included predictors were arrival via Emergency Medical Services (+30 points), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15 (+20 points), GCS <14 (+50 points), antiplatelet medications (+17 points), loss of consciousness (+16 points), signs of basilar skull fracture (+50 points), and headache (+20 points). Utilizing this clinical decision rule in the validation cohort, a point total ≥25 had a sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% (95% CI: 96.0-100) and 12.3% (95% CI: 10.9-13.8), respectively, for significant intracranial injury and Need for Neurosurgical Intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The Florida Geriatric Head Trauma CT Clinical Decision Rule has the potential to reduce unnecessary CT scans in older adults, without compromising safe emergency medicine practice.

Utilization of the Modified Brain Injury Guidelines by Neurosurgeons to Improve Traumatic Brain Injury Patient Throughput at a Level I Trauma Center: A Retrospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) were developed to improve care of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study aimed to assess if utilization of mBIG by neurosurgeons would improve TBI patient throughput at a Level I trauma center, particularly for patients meeting mBIG 1 criteria.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study at a Level I trauma center. The mBIG were adopted in November 2021. Outcome and safety data for patients ≥18 years old meeting mBIG 1 criteria treated 18 months before (pre-mBIG cohort) or after (post-mBIG cohort) implementation were compared. Patients meeting criteria for mBIG 2 or mBIG 3 classification were excluded. In contrast to mBIG, neurosurgery was involved in the care of all patients.

RESULTS

The study included 170 patients with traumatic brain injury (77 pre-mBIG, 93 post-mBIG). In the post-mBIG cohort, 53 patients (57%) were discharged from the emergency department after a period of observation versus 3 patients (4%) in the pre-mBIG cohort (P ≤ 0.01). Post-mBIG patients who were not discharged were most often admitted for care of other injuries (85%). Repeat neuroimaging was less frequent in post-mBIG patients (15% vs. 62%, P ≤ 0.01). No patients in either cohort needed operative neurosurgical interventions or medical therapy for intracranial hypertension or experienced neurological deterioration. No post-mBIG patients had radiographic injury progression. The rate of repeat emergency department presentation within 30 days was not different between cohorts (P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

The mBIG 1 criteria were safe and improved low-risk TBI patient throughput at a Level I trauma center. Neurosurgical involvement may be beneficial to the mBIG while still facilitating significant resource savings.

Are geriatric transfer patients with traumatic brain injury at risk for worse outcomes compared to non-geriatric? Propensity-matched study

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between geriatric and non-geriatric patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) transferred to trauma center and effects of anticoagulants/antiplatelets (AC/AP) and reversal therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 1,118 patients with TBI transferred from acute care facilities to level 1 trauma center compared in groups: geriatric versus non-geriatric, geriatric with AC/AP therapy versus without, and geriatric AC/AP with AC/AP reversal therapy versus without.

RESULTS

Patients with TBI constituted 54.4% of trauma transfers. Mean transfer time was 3.9 h. Propensity matched by Injury Severity Score and Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) head geriatric compared to non-geriatric patients had more AC/AP use (53.9% vs 8.8%), repeat head computed tomography (93.7% vs 86.1%), intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (57.4% vs 45.7%) and mortality (9.8% vs 3.2%), all p < 0.004. Patients on AC/AP versus without had more ICU admissions (69.1% vs 51.8%, p < 0.001). Patients with AC/AP reversals compared to without reversals had more AIS head 5 (32.0% vs 13.1%), brain surgeries (17.8% vs 3.5%) and ICU admissions (84.8% vs 57.1%), all p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

TBI constituted half of trauma transfers and 10% required surgery. Based on higher ICU admissions, mortality, and prevalence of AC/AP therapy requiring reversal, geriatric patients with TBI on anticoagulants/antiplatelets should be considered for direct trauma center admission.

Reducing low-value interhospital transfers for mild traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) were developed to stratify traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and improve health care utilization by selectively requiring repeat imaging, intensive care unit admission, and neurosurgical (NSG) consultation. The goal of this study is to assess safety and potential resource savings associated with the application of mBIG on interhospital patient transfers for TBI.

METHODS

Adult patients with TBI transferred to our Level I trauma center from January 2017 to December 2022 meeting mBIG inclusion criteria were retrospectively stratified into mBIG1, mBIG2, and mBIG3 based on initial clinicoradiological factors. At the time, our institution routinely admitted patients with TBI and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to the intensive care unit and obtained a repeat head computed tomography with NSG consultation, independent of TBI severity or changes in neurological examination. The primary outcome was progression of ICH on repeat imaging and/or NSG intervention. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and financial charges. Subgroup analysis on isolated TBI without significant extracranial injury was performed.

RESULTS

Over the 6-year study period, 289 patients were classified into mBIG1 (61; 21.1%), mBIG2 (69; 23.9%), and mBIG3 (159; 55.0%). Of mBIG1 patients, 2 (2.9%) had radiological progression to mBIG2 without clinical decline, and none required NSG intervention. Of mBIG2, 2 patients (3.3%) progressed to mBIG3, and both required NSG intervention. More than 35% of transferred patients had minor isolated TBI. For mBIG1 and mBIG2, the median hospitalization charges per patient were $152,296 and $149,550, respectively, and the median length of stay was 4 and 5 days, respectively, with the majority downgraded from the intensive care unit within 48 hours.

CONCLUSION

Clinically significant progression of ICH occurred infrequently in 1.5% of patients with mBIG1 and mBIG2 injuries. More than 35% of interfacility transfers for minor isolated TBI meeting mBIG1 and 2 criteria are low value and may potentially be safely deferred in an urban health care setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Modified Brain Injury Guidelines for preinjury anticoagulation in traumatic brain injury: An opportunity to reduce health care resource utilization

INTRODUCTION

The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) stratify patients by traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity to provide management recommendations to reduce health care resource burden but mandates that patients on anticoagulation (AC) are allocated to the most severe tertile (BIG 3). We sought to analyze TBI patients on AC therapy using a modified BIG model to determine if this population can offer further opportunity for safe reductions in health care resource utilization.

METHODS

Patients 55 years or older on AC with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) from two centers were retrospectively stratified into BIG 1 to 3 risk groups using modified BIG criteria excluding AC as a criterion. Intracranial hemorrhage progression, neurosurgical intervention (NSI), death, and worsened discharge status were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 221 patients were included, with 23%, 29%, and 48% classified as BIG 1, BIG 2, and BIG 3, respectively. The BIG 3 cohort had a higher rate of AC reversal agents administered (66%) compared with the BIG 1 (40%) and BIG 2 (54%) cohorts ( p < 0.01), as well as ICH progression discovered on repeat head computed tomography (56% vs. 38% vs. 26%, respectively; p < 0.001). No patients in the BIG 1 and 2 cohorts required NSI. No patients in BIG 1 and 3% of patients in BIG 2 died secondary to the ICH. In the BIG 3 cohort, 16% of patients required NSI and 26% died. Brain Injury Guidelines 3 patients had 15 times the odds of mortality compared with BIG 1 patients ( p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The AC population had higher rates of ICH progression than the BIG literature, but this did not lead to more NSI or mortality in the lower tertiles of our modified BIG protocol. If the modified BIG used the original tertile management on our population, then NS consultation may have been reduced by up to 52%. These modified criteria may be a safe opportunity for further health care resource and cost savings in the TBI population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

First steps toward a BIG change: A pilot study to implement the Brain Injury Guidelines across a 24-hospital system

INTRODUCTION

The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) support a subset of low-risk patients to be managed without repeat head computed tomography (RHCT), neurosurgical consult (NSC), or hospital transfer/admission. This pilot aimed to assess mBIG implementation at a single facility to inform future systemwide implementation.

METHODS

Single cohort pilot trial at a level I trauma center, December 2021-August 2022. Adult patients included if tICH meeting BIG 1 or 2 criteria. BIG 3 patients excluded.

RESULTS

No patients required neurosurgical intervention. 72 RHCT and 83 NSC were prevented. 21 isolated BIG 1 were safely discharged home from the ED. No hospital readmissions for tICH. Protocol adherence rate was 92%.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the mBIG at a single trauma center is feasible and optimizes resource utilization. This pilot study will inform an implementation trial of the mBIG across a 24-hospital integrated health system.

The impact of low-dose aspirin in the Brain Injury Guidelines on outcomes in traumatic brain injury: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) characterize patients with intracranial hemorrhage taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents as BIG 3 (the most severe category) regardless of trauma severity. This study assessed the risk of in-hospital mortality or need for neurosurgery in patients taking low-dose aspirin who otherwise would be classified as BIG 1.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at an academic level 1 trauma center. Patients were included if they were admitted with traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage and were evaluated by the BIG criteria. Exclusion criteria included indeterminate BIG status or patients with missing primary outcomes documentation. Patients were categorized as BIG 1, BIG 2, BIG 3, or BIG 1 on aspirin (patients with BIG 1 features taking low-dose aspirin). The primary endpoint was a composite of neurosurgical intervention and all-cause in-hospital mortality. Key secondary endpoints include rate of intracranial hemorrhage progression, and intensive care unit- and hospital-free days.

RESULTS

A total of 1,520 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median initial Glasgow Coma Scale was 14 (interquartile range [IQR], 12-15), Injury Severity Scale score was 17 (IQR, 10-25), and Abbreviated Injury Scale subscore head and neck (AIS Head ) was 3 (IQR, 3-4). The rate of the primary outcome for BIG 1, BIG 1 on aspirin, BIG 2, and BIG 3 was 1%, 2.2%, 1%, and 27%, respectively; the difference between BIG 1 on aspirin and BIG 3 was significant ( p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients taking low-dose aspirin with otherwise BIG 1-grade injuries experienced mortality and required neurosurgery significantly less often than other patients categorized as BIG 3. Inclusion of low-dose aspirin in the BIG criteria should be reevaluated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in general hospitals: a ten-year population-based retrospective cohort study in central Norway

BACKGROUND

Patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are admitted to general hospitals (GHs) without neurosurgical services, but few studies have addressed the management of these patients. This study aimed to describe these patients, the rate of and reasons for managing patients entirely at the GH, and differences between patients managed entirely at the GH (GH group) and patients transferred to the regional trauma centre (RTC group). We specifically examined the characteristics of elderly patients.

METHODS

Patients with moderate (Glasgow Coma Scale score 9-13) and severe (score ≤ 8) TBIs who were admitted to one of the seven GHs without neurosurgical services in central Norway between 01.10.2004 and 01.10.2014 were retrospectively identified. Demographic, injury-related and outcome data were collected from medical records. Head CT scans were reviewed.

RESULTS

Among 274 patients admitted to GHs, 137 (50%) were in the GH group. The transferral rate was 58% for severe TBI and 40% for moderate TBI. Compared to the RTC group, patients in the GH group were older (median age: 78 years vs. 54 years, p < 0.001), more often had a preinjury disability (50% vs. 39%, p = 0.037), and more often had moderate TBI (52% vs. 35%, p = 0.005). The six-month case fatality rate was low (8%) in the GH group when transferral was considered unnecessary due to a low risk of further deterioration and high (90%, median age: 87 years) when neurosurgical intervention was considered nonbeneficial. Only 16% of patients ≥ 80 years old were transferred to the RTC. For this age group, the in-hospital case fatality rate was 67% in the GH group and 36% in the RTC group and 84% and 73%, respectively, at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the patients were managed entirely at a GH, and these were mainly patients considered to have a low risk of further deterioration, patients with moderate TBI, and elderly patients. Less than two of ten patients ≥ 80 years old were transferred, and survival was poor regardless of the transferral status.

Frequency and Predictors of Trauma Transfer Futility to a Rural Level I Trauma Center

INTRODUCTION

Transfer of trauma patients whose injuries are deemed unsurvivable, often results in early death or transition to comfort care and could be considered misuse of health care resources. This is particularly true where tertiary care resources are limited. Identifying riskfactors for and predicting futile transfers could reduce this impact and help to optimize triage and management.

METHODS

A retrospective study of interfacility trauma transfers to a single rural Level I rauma center from 2014 to 2019. Futility was defined as death, hospice, or declaration of comfort measures within 48 h of transfer without procedural or radiographic intervention at the accepting center. Multiple logistic regressions identified independent predictors of futile transfers. The predictive power of Mechanism,Glasgow coma scale, Age, and Arterial pressure (MGAP), an injury severity score based on Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, and systolic blood Pressure, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 3368 trauma transfers, 37 (1.1%) met criteria as futile. Futile transfers occurred among patients who were significantly older with falls as the most common mechanism. Age, Glasgow coma scale, systolic blood Pressure and Injury Severity Score were significant (P < 0.05) independent predictors of futile transfer. MGAP had a high predictive power area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC 0.864, 95% confidence interval 0.803-0.925) for futility.

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion (1.1%) of transfers to a rural Level I trauma center met criteria for futility. Predictive tools, such as MGAP scoring, can provide objective criteria for evaluation of transfer necessity and prompt care pathways that involve pre-transfer communications, telemedicine, and/or patient centered goals of care discussions. Such tools could be used in conjunction with a more granular assessment regarding potential operational barriers to reduce futile transfers and to enhance optimization of resource utilization in low-resource service areas.

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.

Performance of the Hull Salford Cambridge Decision Rule (HSC DR) for early discharge of patients with findings on CT scan of the brain: a CENTER-TBI validation study

BACKGROUND

There is international variation in hospital admission practices for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and injuries on CT scan. Only a small proportion of patients require neurosurgical intervention, while many guidelines recommend routine admission of all patients. We aim to validate the Hull Salford Cambridge Decision Rule (HSC DR) and the Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) criteria to select low-risk patients for discharge from the emergency department.

METHOD

A cohort from 18 countries of Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15 patients with injuries on CT imaging was identified from the multicentre Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) Study (conducted from 2014 to 2017) for secondary analysis. A composite outcome measure encompassing need for ongoing hospital admission was used, including seizure activity, death, intubation, neurosurgical intervention and neurological deterioration. We assessed the performance of our previously derived prognostic model, the HSC DR and the BIG criteria at predicting deterioration in this validation cohort.

RESULTS

Among 1047 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 267 (26%) deteriorated. Our prognostic model achieved a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.84). The HSC DR achieved a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 97% to 100%) and specificity of only 4.7% (95% CI: 3.3% to 6.5%) for deterioration. Using the BIG criteria for discharge from the ED achieved a higher specificity (13.3%, 95% CI: 10.9% to 16.1%) and lower sensitivity (94.6%, 95% CI: 90.5% to 97%), with 12/105 patients recommended for discharge subsequently deteriorating, compared with 0/34 with the HSC DR.

CONCLUSION

Our decision rule would have allowed 3.5% of patients to be discharged, none of whom would have deteriorated. Use of the BIG criteria may select patients for discharge who have too high a risk of subsequent deterioration to be used clinically. Further validation and implementation studies are required to support use in clinical practice.

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.

Assessing the efficacy of mild traumatic brain injury management

OBJECTIVE

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is frequently found on computed tomography (CT) after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) prompting transfer to centers with neurosurgical coverage and repeat imaging to confirm hemorrhage stability. Studies suggest routine repeat imaging has little utility in patients with minimal ICH, no anticoagulant/antiplatelet use, and no neurological decline. Additionally, it is unclear which mTBI patients benefit from transfer for neurosurgery consultation. The authors sought to assess the clinical utility and cost effectiveness of routine repeat head CTs and transfer to tertiary centers in patients with low-risk, mTBI.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of patients receiving a neurosurgical consultation for TBI during a 4-year period was performed at a level 1 trauma center. Patients were stratified according to risk for neurosurgical intervention based on their initial clinical evaluation and head CT. Only patients with low-risk, mTBI were included.

RESULTS

Of 531 patients, 119 met inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight (74.0 %) received two or more CTs. Direct cost of repeat imaging was $273,374. Thirty-seven (31.1 %) were transferred to our facility from hospitals without neurosurgical coverage, costing $61,384. No patient had neurosurgical intervention or mTBI-related in-hospital mortality despite enlarging ICH on repeat CT in three patients. Two patients had mTBI related 30-day readmission for seizure without ICH expansion.

CONCLUSION

Routine repeat head CT or transfer of low-risk, mTBI patients to a tertiary center did not result in neurosurgical intervention. Serial neurological examinations may be a safe, cost-effective alternative to repeat imaging for select mTBI patients. A large prospective analysis is warranted for further evaluation.

Inter-facility transfer of patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and GCS 14-15: The pilot study of a screening protocol by neurosurgeon to avoid unnecessary transfers

We sought to evaluate feasibility and cost-reduction potential of a pilot screening program involving neurosurgeon tele-consultation for inter-facility transfer decisions in TBI patients with GCS 14–15 and abnormal CT head at a community hospital. The authors performed a retrospective comparative analysis of two patient cohorts during the pilot at a large hospital system from 2015 to 2017. In “screened” patients (n = 85), images and examination were reviewed remotely by a neurosurgeon who made recommendations regarding transfer to a level 1 trauma center. In the “unscreened” group (n = 39), all patients were transferred. Baseline patient characteristics, outcomes, and costs were reviewed. Patient demographics were similar between cohorts. Traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage was more common in screened patients (29.4% vs 12.8%, P = 0.02). The presence of midline shift >5 mm was comparable between groups. Among screened patients, 5 were transferred (5.8%) and one required evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma. In unscreened patients, 7 required evacuation of subdural hematoma. None of the screened patients who were not transferred deteriorated. Screened patients had significantly reduced average total cost compared to unscreened patients ($2,003 vs. $4,482, P = 0.03) despite similar lengths of stay (2.6 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.85). In non-surgical patients, costs were less in the screened group ($2,025 vs. $2,939), although statistically insignificant (P = 0.38).

In this pilot study, remote review of images and examination by a neurosurgeon was feasible to avoid unnecessary transfer of patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and GCS 14–15. The true potential in cost-reduction will be realized in system-wide large-scale implementation.

Secondary Overtriage of Trauma Patients: Analysis of Clinical and Geographic Patterns

BACKGROUND

The purpose of a trauma system is to match patients' needs with hospitals' ability to care for them, recognizing that the highest levels of care cannot be provided in all locations. This means that some patients will need to be transferred from a local facility to a higher level of care. Unnecessary transfers are expensive and inconvenient to patients and families. The aim of this study is to analyze the pattern of secondary transfers in a regional trauma system.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. We included patients aged 16 y and older who were transferred to University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between 2014 and 2018. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify clinical and organizational predictors of requiring a critical intervention, early discharge, intensive care unit admission, and mortality. Rather than treating each injury as isolated, we analyzed injury patterns.

RESULTS

A total of3824 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 664 patients (17.4%) required a critical intervention, 635 (16.6%) were discharged within 24 h, 1356 (35.5%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 172 (4.0%) patients died. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed many positive associations, with regard to injury pattern, originating center, and insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

There are patterns in the data, and further study is required to understand drivers of secondary overtriage, and how we might be able to address this problem. Reducing the number of unnecessary transfers is a difficult task, which will require engagement at all levels of the trauma system.

Which factors influence the decision to transfer patients with traumatic brain injury to a neurosurgery unit in a major trauma network?

Objectives: Within the pan London Major Trauma System many patients with minor or non-life threatening traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain at their local hospital and are not transferred to a major trauma centre (MTC). Our aim was to identify factors that influence the decision to transfer patients with TBI to a neurosurgical centre.Methods: This is a single centre prospective cohort study of all patients with TBI referred to our neurosurgery unit from regional acute hospitals over a 4-month period (Sept 2016-Jan 2017). Our primary outcome was transferred to a neurosurgical centre. We identified the following factors that may predict decision to transfer: patient demographics, transfer distance, antithrombotic therapy and severity of TBI based on initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Marshall CT score. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.Results: A total of 339 patients were referred from regional hospitals with TBI and of these, 53 (15.6%) were transferred to our hospital. The mean age of patients referred was 70.6 years, 62.5% were men and 43% on antithrombotic drugs. Eighty-six percent of patients had mild TBI (GCS 13-15) on initial assessment and 79% had a Marshall CT score of 2. The adjusted analysis revealed only higher age, higher Marshall Score, the presence of chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH), the presence of contusion(s) and fracture(s) predicted transfer (p<.05). Subgroup analysis consistently showed a higher Marshall score predicted transfer (p<.05).Conclusions: In our cohort higher Marshall score consistently predicted transfer to our neurosurgical centre. Presenting GCS, transfer distance and antithrombotic therapy did not influence decision to transfer.

Trauma center transfer of elderly patients with mild Traumatic Brain Injury improves outcomes

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are frequently transferred to designated Trauma Centers (TC). We hypothesized that TC transfer is associated with improved outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective study utilizing the National Trauma Databank. Demographics, injury and outcomes data were abstracted. Patients were dichotomized by transfer to a designated level I/II TC vs. not. Multivariate regression was used to derive the adjusted primary outcome, mortality, and secondary outcomes, complications and discharge disposition.

RESULTS

19,664 patients were included, with a mean age of 78.1 years. 70% were transferred to a level I/II TC. Transferred patients had a higher ISS (12 vs. 10, p < 0.001). Mortality was significantly lower in patients transferred to level I/II TCs (5.6% vs. 6.2%, Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 0.84, p = 0.011), as was the likelihood of discharge to skilled nursing facilities (26.4% vs. 30.2%, AOR 0.80, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with mild TBI transferred to level I/II TCs have improved outcomes. Which patients with mild TBI require level I/II TC care should be examined prospectively.