Evaluation of Clinical Characteristics and CT Decision Rules in Elderly Patients with Minor Head Injury: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Age is variably described as a minor or major risk factor for traumatic intracranial lesions after head injury. However, at present, no specific CT decision rule is available for elderly patients with minor head injury (MHI). The aims of this prospective multicenter cohort study were to assess the performance of existing CT decision rules for elderly MHI patients and to compare the clinical and CT characteristics of elderly patients with the younger MHI population. Thirty-day mortality between two age groups (cutoff ≥ 60 years), along with clinical and CT characteristics, was evaluated with four CT decision rules: the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), and the CT Head Injury Patients (CHIP) rule. Of the 5517 MHI patients included, 2310 were aged ≥ 60 years. Elderly patients experienced loss of consciousness (17% vs. 32%) and posttraumatic amnesia (23% vs. 31%) less often, but intracranial lesions (13% vs. 10%), neurological deterioration (1.8% vs. 0.2%), and 30-day mortality (2.0% vs. 0.1%) were more frequent than in younger patients (all p < 0.001). Elderly patients with age as their only risk factor showed intracranial lesions in 5% (NOC and CHIP) to 8% (CCHR and NICE) of cases. The sensitivity of decision rules in the elderly patients was 60% (CCHR) to 97% (NOC) when age was excluded as a risk factor. Current risk factors considered when evaluating elderly patients show lower sensitivity to identify intracranial abnormalities, despite more frequent intracranial lesions. Until age-specific CT decision rules are developed, it is advisable to scan every elderly patient with an MHI.

Update of the CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for patients with minor head injury based on a multicenter consecutive case series.

OBJECTIVE: To update the existing CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for detection of (intra)cranial findings in adult patients following minor head injury (MHI). METHODS: The study is a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands. Consecutive MHI patients of 16 years and older were included. Primary outcome was any (intra)cranial traumatic finding on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes were any potential neurosurgical lesion and neurosurgical intervention. The CHIP model was validated and subsequently updated and revised. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating the c-statistic. RESULTS: Among 4557 included patients 3742 received a CT (82%). In 383 patients (8.4%) a traumatic finding was present on CT. A potential neurosurgical lesion was found in 73 patients (1.6%) with 26 (0.6%) patients that actually had neurosurgery or died as a result of traumatic brain injury. The original CHIP underestimated the risk of traumatic (intra)cranial findings in low-predicted-risk groups, while in high-predicted-risk groups the risk was overestimated. The c-statistic of the original CHIP model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) and it would have missed two potential neurosurgical lesions and one patient that underwent neurosurgery. The updated model performed similar to the original model regarding traumatic (intra)cranial findings (c-statistic 0.77 95% CI 0.74-0.79, after crossvalidation c-statistic 0.73). The updated CHIP had the same CT rate as the original CHIP (75%) and a similar sensitivity (92 versus 93%) and specificity (both 27%) for any traumatic (intra)cranial finding. However, the updated CHIP would not have missed any (potential) neurosurgical lesions and had a higher sensitivity for (potential) neurosurgical lesions or death as a result of traumatic brain injury (100% versus 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the updated CHIP decision rule is a good alternative to current decision rules for patients with MHI. In contrast to the original CHIP the update identified all patients with (potential) neurosurgical lesions without increasing CT rate.

Prognosis in Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Models and Validation Studies.

Outcome prognostication in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important but challenging due to heterogeneity of the disease. The aim of this systematic review is to present the current state-of-the-art on prognostic models for outcome after moderate and severe TBI and evidence on their validity. We searched for studies reporting on the development, validation or extension of prognostic models for functional outcome after TBI with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤12 published between 2006-2018. Studies with patients age ≥14 years and evaluating a multi-variable prognostic model based on admission characteristics were included. Model discrimination was expressed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and model calibration with calibration slope and intercept. We included 58 studies describing 67 different prognostic models, comprising the development of 42 models, 149 external validations of 31 models, and 12 model extensions. The most common predictors were GCS (motor) score (n = 55), age (n = 54), and pupillary reactivity (n = 48). Model discrimination varied substantially between studies. The International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) models were developed on the largest cohorts (8509 and 10,008 patients, respectively) and were most often externally validated (n = 91), yielding AUCs ranging between 0.65-0.90 and 0.66-1.00, respectively. Model calibration was reported with a calibration intercept and slope for seven models in 53 validations, and was highly variable. In conclusion, the discriminatory validity of the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models is supported across a range of settings. The variation in calibration, reflecting heterogeneity in reliability of predictions, motivates continuous validation and updating if clinical implementation is pursued.

[Diagnostics in patients with minor head injury: current practices]. / Diagnostiek bij patiënten met licht traumatisch hoofdletsel.

In the emergency department, we see many patients with minor head injury (MHI). To help physicians decide which patient should have a CT scan, decision rules have been developed that calculate the risk of intracranial complications based on a number of criteria. One of those decision rules is the CT in Head Injury Patients (CHIP) decision rule on which the Dutch national MHI guideline is based. In a recent hospital-based study in the Netherlands, the CHIP decision rule and three other decision rules were investigated. The different decision rules showed a variation in the percentage of unnecessary CT scans and failure to identify traumatic abnormalities on CT. The CHIP decision rule performed the best, but an update of the decision rule is needed. We expect that the results of our study and future update of the CHIP decision rule can contribute to an effective decision rule for clinical practice.

Sudden unresponsive patient with normal vital signs: what is going on?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the differential diagnosis and diagnostic approach of sudden unresponsiveness with normal vital signs in various settings, including the ICU. RECENT FINDINGS: Sudden unresponsiveness may be either transient or persistent, and may result from primary brain diseases or nonstructural systemic conditions. Life-threatening causes should always be discriminated from those more benign. Regional epidemiology, for example regarding intoxications, and evolving therapeutic management, for example for ischemic stroke, should always be taken into account for optimal opportunity for rapid diagnosis and best management. SUMMARY: Sudden unresponsiveness with normal vital signs should trigger immediate and focused diagnostic evaluation to find or exclude those conditions requiring urgent, and possibly life-saving, management.

Risk of Intracranial Complications in Minor Head Injury: The Role of Loss of Consciousness and Post-Traumatic Amnesia in a Multi-Center Observational Study.

Various guidelines for minor head injury focus on patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13-15 and loss of consciousness (LOC) or post-traumatic amnesia (PTA), while clinical management for patients without LOC or PTA is often unclear. We aimed to investigate the effect of presence and absence of LOC or PTA on intracranial complications in minor head injury. A prospective multi-center cohort study of all patients with blunt head injury and GCS score of 15 was conducted at six Dutch centers between 2015 and 2017. Five centers used the national guideline and one center used a local guideline-both based on the CT in Head Injury Patients (CHIP) prediction model-to identify patients in need of a computed tomography (CT) scan. We studied the presence of traumatic findings and neurosurgical interventions in patients with and without LOC or PTA. In addition, we assessed the association of LOC and PTA with traumatic findings with logistic regression analysis and the additional predictive value of LOC and PTA compared with other risk factors in the CHIP model. Of 3914 patients, 2249 (58%) experienced neither LOC nor PTA and in 305 (8%) LOC and PTA was unknown. Traumatic findings were present in 153 of 1360 patients (11%) with LOC or PTA and in 67 of 2249 patients (3%) without LOC and PTA. Five patients without LOC and PTA had potential neurosurgical lesions and one patient underwent a neurosurgical intervention. LOC and PTA were strongly associated with traumatic findings on CT, with adjusted odds ratios of 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-3.8) and 3.5 (95% CI 2.7-4.6), respectively. To conclude, patients who had minor head injury with neither LOC nor PTA are at risk of intracranial complications. Clinical guidelines should include clinical management for patients without LOC and PTA, and they should include LOC and PTA as separate risk factors rather than as diagnostic selection criteria.

Impact of guidelines for the management of minor head injury on the utilization and diagnostic yield of CT over two decades, using natural language processing in a large dataset.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the impact of clinical guidelines for the management of minor head injury on utilization and diagnostic yield of head CT over two decades. METHODS: Retrospective before-after study using multiple electronic health record data sources. Natural language processing algorithms were developed to rapidly extract indication, Glasgow Coma Scale, and CT outcome from clinical records, creating two datasets: one based on all head injury CTs from 1997 to 2009 (n = 9109), for which diagnostic yield of intracranial traumatic findings was calculated. The second dataset (2009-2014) used both CT reports and clinical notes from the emergency department, enabling selection of minor head injury patients (n = 4554) and calculation of both CT utilization and diagnostic yield. Additionally, we tested for significant changes in utilization and yield after guideline implementation in 2011, using chi-square statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS: The yield was initially nearly 60%, but in a decreasing trend dropped below 20% when CT became routinely used for head trauma. Between 2009 and 2014, of 4554 minor head injury patients overall, 85.4% underwent head CT. After guideline implementation in 2011, CT utilization significantly increased from 81.6 to 87.6% (p = 7 × 10-7), while yield significantly decreased from 12.2 to 9.6% (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: The number of CTs performed for head trauma gradually increased over two decades, while the yield decreased. In 2011, despite implementation of a guideline aiming to improve selective use of CT in minor head injury, utilization significantly increased. KEY POINTS: • Over two decades, the number of head CTs performed for minor, moderate, and severe head injury gradually increased, while the diagnostic yield for intracranial findings showed a decreasing trend. • Despite the implementation of a guideline in 2011, aiming to improve selective use of CT in minor head injury, utilization significantly increased, while diagnostic yield significantly decreased. • Natural language processing is a valuable tool to monitor the utilization and diagnostic yield of imaging as a potential quality-of-care indicator.

External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury. RESULTS: For the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.

Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury at the Emergency Department and Hospital Admission in Europe: A Survey of 71 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

Previous studies have indicated that there is no consensus about management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) at the emergency department (ED) and during hospital admission. We aim to study variability between management policies for TBI patients at the ED and at the hospital ward across Europe. Centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study received questionnaires about different phases of TBI care. These questionnaires included 71 questions about TBI management at the ED and at the hospital ward. We found differences in how centers defined mTBI. For example, 40 centers (59%) defined mTBI as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score between 13 and 15 and 26 (38%) defined it as a GCS score between 14 and 15. At the ED various guidelines for the use of head computed tomography (CT) in mTBI patients were used; 32 centers (49%) used national guidelines, 10 centers (15%) local guidelines, and 14 centers (21%) used no guidelines at all. Also, differences in indication for admission between centers were found. After ED discharge, 7 centers (10%) scheduled a routine follow-up appointment, whereas 38 (54%) did so only after ward admission. In conclusion, large between-center variation exists in policies for diagnostics, admission, and discharge decisions in patients with mTBI at the ED and in the hospital. Guidelines are not always operational in centers, and reported policies systematically diverge from what is recommended in those guidelines. The results of this study may be useful in the understanding of mTBI care in Europe and show the need for further studies on the effectiveness of different policies on outcome.