The Roles of Protocols and Protocolization in Improving Outcome From Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Our Phase-I parallel-cohort study suggested that managing severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) in the absence of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring using an ad hoc Imaging and Clinical Examination (ICE) treatment protocol was associated with superior outcome vs nonprotocolized management but could not differentiate the influence of protocolization from that of the specific protocol. Phase II investigates whether adopting the Consensus REVised Imaging and Clinical Examination (CREVICE) protocol improved outcome directly or indirectly via protocolization.

METHODS

We performed a Phase-II sequential parallel-cohort study examining adoption of the CREVICE protocol from no protocol vs a previous protocol in patients with sTBI older than 13 years presenting ≤24 hours after injury. Primary outcome was prespecified 6-month recovery. The study was done mostly at public South American centers managing sTBI without ICP monitoring. Fourteen Phase-I nonprotocol centers and 5 Phase-I protocol centers adopted CREVICE. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equation regression adjusting for demographic imbalances.

RESULTS

A total of 501 patients (86% male, mean age 35.4 years) enrolled; 81% had 6 months of follow-up. Adopting CREVICE from no protocol was associated with significantly superior results for overall 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Score (GOSE) (protocol effect = 0.53 [0.11, 0.95], P = .013), mortality (36% vs 21%, HR = 0.59 [0.46, 0.76], P < .001), and orientation (Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test discharge protocol effect = 10.9 [6.0, 15.8], P < .001, 6-month protocol effect = 11.4 [4.1, 18.6], P < .005). Adopting CREVICE from ICE was associated with significant benefits to GOSE (protocol effect = 0.51 [0.04, 0.98], P = .033), 6-month mortality (25% vs 18%, HR = 0.55 [0.39, 0.77], P < .001), and orientation (Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test 6-month protocol effect = 9.2 [3.6, 14.7], P = .004). Comparing both groups using CREVICE, those who had used ICE previously had significantly better GOSE (protocol effect = 1.15 [0.09, 2.20], P = .033).

CONCLUSION

Centers managing adult sTBI without ICP monitoring should strongly consider protocolization through adopting/adapting the CREVICE protocol. Protocolization is indirectly supported at sTBI centers regardless of resource availability.

Testing the Impact of Protocolized Care of Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Without Intracranial Pressure Monitoring: The Imaging and Clinical Examination Protocol

BACKGROUND

Most patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) in low- or-middle-income countries and surprisingly many in high-income countries are managed without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. The impact of the first published protocol (Imaging and Clinical Examination [ICE] protocol) is untested against nonprotocol management.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs) using the ICE protocol have lower mortality and better neurobehavioral functioning than those treated in ICUs using no protocol.

METHODS

This study involved nineteen mostly public South American hospitals. This is a prospective cohort study, enrolling patients older than 13 years with sTBI presenting within 24 h of injury (January 2014-July 2015) with 6-mo postinjury follow-up. Five hospitals treated all sTBI cases using the ICE protocol; 14 used no protocol. Primary outcome was prespecified composite of mortality, orientation, functional outcome, and neuropsychological measures.

RESULTS

A total of 414 patients (89% male, mean age 34.8 years) enrolled; 81% had 6 months of follow-up. All participants included in composite outcome analysis: average percentile (SD) = 46.8 (24.0) nonprotocol, 56.9 (24.5) protocol. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) used to account for center effects (confounder-adjusted difference [95% CI] = 12.2 [4.6, 19.8], P = .002). Kaplan-Meier 6-month mortality (95% CI) = 36% (30%, 43%) nonprotocol, 25% (19%, 31%) protocol (GEE and confounder-adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] = .69 [.43, 1.10], P = .118). Six-month Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale for 332 participants: average Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale score (SD) = 3.6 (2.6) nonprotocol, 4.7 (2.8) protocol (GEE and confounder-adjusted and lost to follow-up-adjusted difference [95% CI] = 1.36 [.55, 2.17], P = .001).

CONCLUSION

ICUs managing patients with sTBI using the ICE protocol had better functional outcome than those not using a protocol. ICUs treating patients with sTBI without ICP monitoring should consider protocolization. The ICE protocol, tested here and previously, is 1 option.

Consensus-Based Management Protocol (CREVICE Protocol) for the Treatment of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Based on Imaging and Clinical Examination for Use When Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Is Not Employed

Globally, intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring use in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is inconsistent and susceptible to resource limitations and clinical philosophies. For situations without monitoring, there is no published comprehensive management algorithm specific to identifying and treating suspected intracranial hypertension (SICH) outside of the one ad hoc Imaging and Clinical Examination (ICE) protocol in the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST:TRIP) trial. As part of an ongoing National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported project, a consensus conference involving 43 experienced Latin American Intensivists and Neurosurgeons who routinely care for sTBI patients without ICP monitoring, refined, revised, and augmented the original BEST:TRIP algorithm. Based on BEST:TRIP trial data and pre-meeting polling, 11 issues were targeted for development. We used Delphi-based methodology to codify individual statements and the final algorithm, using a group agreement threshold of 80%. The resulting CREVICE (Consensus REVised ICE) algorithm defines SICH and addresses both general management and specific treatment. SICH treatment modalities are organized into tiers to guide treatment escalation and tapering. Treatment schedules were developed to facilitate targeted management of disease severity. A decision-support model, based on the group's combined practices, is provided to guide this process. This algorithm provides the first comprehensive management algorithm for treating sTBI patients when ICP monitoring is not available. It is intended to provide a framework to guide clinical care and direct future research toward sTBI management. Because of the dearth of relevant literature, it is explicitly consensus based, and is provided solely as a resource (a "consensus-based curbside consult") to assist in treating sTBI in general intensive care units in resource-limited environments.

The Outcome of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Latin America

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) disproportionately affects lower- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The factors influencing outcomes in LMIC have not been examined as rigorously as in higher-income countries.

METHODS

This study was conducted to examine clinical and demographic factors influencing TBI outcomes in Latin American LMIC. Data were prospectively collected during a randomized trial of intracranial pressure monitoring in severe TBI and a companion observational study. Participants were aged ≥13 years and admitted to study hospitals with Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8. The primary outcome was Glasgow Outcome Scale, Extended (GOS-E) score at 6 months. Predictors were analyzed using a multivariable proportional odds model created by forward stepwise selection.

RESULTS

A total of 550 patients were identified. Six-month outcomes were available for 88%, of whom 37% had died and 44% had achieved a GOS-E score of 5-8. In multivariable proportional odds modeling, higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 per point; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.61) and epidural hematoma (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.17-2.86) were significant predictors of higher GOS-E score, whereas advanced age (OR, 0.65 per 10 years; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73) and cisternal effacement (P < 0.001) were associated with lower GOS-E score. Study site (P < 0.001) and race (P = 0.004) significantly predicted outcome, outweighing clinical variables such as hypotension and pupillary examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality from severe TBI is high in Latin American LMIC, although the rate of favorable recovery is similar to that of high-income countries. Demographic factors such as race and study site played an outsized role in predicting outcome; further research is required to understand these associations.

A Method of Managing Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Absence of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring: The Imaging and Clinical Examination Protocol

The imaging and clinical examination (ICE) algorithm used in the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial is the only prospectively investigated clinical protocol for traumatic brain injury management without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. As the default literature standard, it warrants careful evaluation. We present the ICE protocol in detail and analyze the demographics, outcome, treatment intensity, frequency of intervention usage, and related adverse events in the ICE-protocol cohort. The 167 ICE protocol patients were young (median 29 years) with a median Glasgow Coma Scale motor score of 4 but with anisocoria or abnormal pupillary reactivity in 40%. This protocol produced outcomes not significantly different from those randomized to the monitor-based protocol (favorable 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Score in 39%; 41% mortality rate). Agents commonly employed to treat suspected intracranial hypertension included low-/moderate-dose hypertonic saline (72%) and mannitol (57%), mild hyperventilation (adjusted partial pressure of carbon dioxide 30-35 mm Hg in 73%), and pressors to maintain cerebral perfusion (62%). High-dose hyperosmotics or barbiturates were uncommonly used. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable to the BEST TRIP monitored group. Although this protocol should produce similar/acceptable results under circumstances comparable to those in the trial, influences such as longer pre-hospital times and non-specialist transport personnel, plus an intensive care unit model of aggressive physician-intensive care by small groups of neurotrauma-focused intensivists, which differs from most high-resource models, support caution in expecting the same results in dissimilar settings. Finally, this protocol's ICP-titration approach to suspected intracranial hypertension (vs. crisis management for monitored ICP) warrants further study.