Early versus delayed cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: a multicenter observational study within CENTER-TBI and Net-QuRe.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of early (≤ 90 days) and delayed (> 90 days) cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy (DC) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: The authors analyzed participants enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) and the Neurotraumatology Quality Registry (Net-QuRe) studies who were diagnosed with TBI and underwent DC and subsequent cranioplasty. These prospective, multicenter, observational cohort studies included 5091 patients enrolled from 2014 to 2020. The effect of cranioplasty timing on functional outcome was evaluated with multivariable ordinal regression and with propensity score matching (PSM) in a sensitivity analysis of functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended [GOSE] score) and quality of life (Quality of Life After Brain Injury [QOLIBRI] instrument) at 12 months following DC. RESULTS: Among 173 eligible patients, 73 (42%) underwent early cranioplasty and 100 (58%) underwent delayed cranioplasty. In the ordinal logistic regression and PSM, similar 12-month GOSE scores were found between the two groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.61-1.21 and 0.88, 95% CI 0.48-1.65, respectively). In the ordinal logistic regression, early cranioplasty was associated with a higher risk for hydrocephalus than that with delayed cranioplasty (aOR 4.0, 95% CI 1.2-16). Postdischarge seizure rates (early cranioplasty: aOR 1.73, 95% CI 0.7-4.7) and QOLIBRI scores (ß -1.9, 95% CI -9.1 to 9.6) were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcome and quality of life were similar between early and delayed cranioplasty in patients who had undergone DC for TBI. Neurosurgeons may consider performing cranioplasty during the index admission (early) to simplify the patient's chain of care and prevent readmission for cranioplasty but should be vigilant for an increased possibility of hydrocephalus. Clinical trial registration nos.: CENTER-TBI, NCT02210221 (clinicaltrials.gov); Net-QuRe, NTR6003 (trialsearch.who.int) and NL5761 (onderzoekmetmensen.nl).

Treatment-limiting decisions in patients with severe traumatic brain injury in the Netherlands.

Introduction: Treatment-limiting decisions (TLDs) can be inevitable severe traumatic brain injury (s-TBI) patients, but data on their use remain scarce. Research question: To investigate the prevalence, timing and considerations of TLDs in s-TBI patients. Material and methods: s-TBI patients between 2008 and 2017 were analysed retrospecively. Patient data, timing, location, involvement of proxies, and reasons for TLDs were collected. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared between s-TBI patients with and without TLDs. Results: TLDs were reported in 117 of 270 s-TBI patients (43.3%) and 95.9% of deaths after s-TBI were preceded by a TLD. The majority of TLDs (68.4%) were categorized as withdrawal of therapy, of which withdrawal of organ-support in 64.1%. Neurosurgical intervention was withheld in 29.9%. The median time from admission to TLD was 2 days [IQR, 0-8] and 50.4% of TLDs were made within 3 days of admission. The main reason for a TLD was that the patients were perceived as unsalvageable (66.7%). Nearly all decisions were made multidisciplinary (99.1%) with proxies involvement (75.2%). The predicted mortality (CRASH-score) between patients with and without TLDs were 72.6 vs. 70.6%. The percentage of TLDs in s-TBI patients increased from 20.0% in 2008 to 42.9% in 2012 and 64.3% in 2017. Discussion and conclusion: TLDs occurred in almost half of s-TBI patients and were instituted more frequently over time. Half of TLDs were made within 3 days of admission in spite of baseline prognosis between groups being similar. Future research should address whether prognostic nihilism contributes to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Study on prognosis of acutely ruptured intracranial aneurysms (SPARTA): a protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ruptured intracranial aneurysms resulting in subarachnoid haemorrhage can be treated by open surgical or endovascular treatment. Despite multiple previous studies, uncertainties on the optimal treatment practice still exists. The resulting treatment variation may result in a variable, potentially worse, patient outcome. To better inform future treatment strategies, this study aims to identify the effectiveness of different treatment strategies in patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms by investigating long-term functional outcome, complications and cost-effectiveness. An explorative analysis of the diagnostic and prognostic value of radiological imaging will also be performed. METHODS: This multi-centre observational prospective cohort study will have a follow-up of 10 years. A total of 880 adult patients with a subarachnoid haemorrhage caused by a ruptured intracranial aneurysm will be included. Calculation of sample size (N = 880) was performed to show non-inferiority of clip-reconstruction compared to endovascular treatment on 1 year outcome, assessed by using the ordinal modified Rankin Scale. The primary endpoint is the modified Rankin Scale score and mortality at 1 year after the initial subarachnoid haemorrhage. Patients will receive 'non-experimental' regular care during their hospital stay. For this study, health questionnaires and functional outcome will be assessed at baseline, before discharge and at follow-up visits. DISCUSSION: Despite the major healthcare and societal burden, the optimal treatment strategy for patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage caused by ruptured intracranial aneurysms is yet to be determined. Findings of this comparative effectiveness study, in which in-between centre variation in practice and patient outcome are investigated, will provide evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies, hopefully contributing to future high value treatment standardisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05851989 DATE OF REGISTRATION: May 10th, 2023.

Early surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hematoma: a CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding the effect of surgery in traumatic intracerebral hematoma (t-ICH) is limited and relies on the STITCH(Trauma) trial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of early surgery to conservative treatment in patients with a t-ICH. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, we included patients with a large t-ICH (< 48 h of injury). Primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, analyzed with multivariable proportional odds logistic regression. Subgroups included injury severity and isolated vs. non-isolated t-ICH. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients with a large t-ICH were included, of whom 160 received early surgery and 207 received conservative treatment. Patients receiving early surgery were younger (median age 54 vs. 58 years) and more severely injured (median Glasgow Coma Scale 7 vs. 10) compared to those treated conservatively. In the overall cohort, early surgery was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.1, (95% CI, 0.6-1.7)) compared to conservative treatment. Early surgery was associated with better outcome for patients with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH (AOR 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.5); P value for interaction 0.004). Conversely, in mild TBI and those with a smaller t-ICH (< 33 cc), conservative treatment was associated with better outcome (AOR 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.9); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0); P value for interaction 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Early surgery in t-ICH might benefit those with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH, comparable with results of the STITCH(Trauma) trial.

Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI): an observational cohort study.

Background: Limited evidence existed on the comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) versus craniotomy for evacuation of traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) until the recently published randomised clinical trial RESCUE-ASDH. In this study, that ran concurrently, we aimed to determine current practice patterns and compare outcomes of primary DC versus craniotomy. Methods: We conducted an analysis of centre treatment preference within the prospective, multicentre, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (known as CENTER-TBI) and NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry (known as Net-QuRe) studies, which enrolled patients throughout Europe and Israel (2014-2020). We included patients with an ASDH who underwent acute neurosurgical evacuation. Patients with severe pre-existing neurological disorders were excluded. In an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference, measured by the case-mix adjusted proportion DC per centre. The primary outcome was functional outcome rated by the 6-months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582). Findings: Between December 19, 2014 and December 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI of whom 336 (7%) underwent acute surgery for ASDH evacuation; 91 (27%) underwent DC and 245 (63%) craniotomy. The proportion primary DC within total acute surgery cases ranged from 6 to 67% with an interquartile range (IQR) of 12-26% among 46 centres; the odds of receiving a DC for prognostically similar patients in one centre versus another randomly selected centre were trebled (adjusted median odds ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001). Higher centre preference for DC over craniotomy was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio (OR) per 14% [IQR increase] more DC in a centre = 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1], n = 200). Primary DC was associated with more follow-on surgeries and complications [secondary cranial surgery 27% vs. 18%; shunts 11 vs. 5%]; and similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 14% IQR more primary DC 1.3 [95% CI (1.0-3.4), n = 200]). Interpretation: We found substantial practice variation in the employment of DC over craniotomy for ASDH. This variation in treatment strategy did not result in different functional outcome. These findings suggest that primary DC should be restricted to salvageable patients in whom immediate replacement of the bone flap is not possible due to intraoperative brain swelling. Funding: Hersenstichting Nederland for the Dutch NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.

Intramural Healthcare Consumption and Costs After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health problem and a leading cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. The increasing incidence combined with the heterogeneity and complexity of TBI will inevitably place a substantial burden on health systems. These findings emphasize the importance of obtaining accurate and timely insights into healthcare consumption and costs on a multi-national scale. This study aimed to describe intramural healthcare consumption and costs across the full spectrum of TBI in Europe. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) core study is a prospective observational study conducted in 18 countries across Europe and in Israel. The baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was used to differentiate patients by brain injury severity in mild (GCS 13-15), moderate (GCS 9-12), or severe (GCS ≤8) TBI. We analyzed seven main cost categories: pre-hospital care, hospital admission, surgical interventions, imaging, laboratory, blood products, and rehabilitation. Costs were estimated based on Dutch reference prices and converted to country-specific unit prices using gross domestic product (GDP)-purchasing power parity (PPP) adjustment. Mixed linear regression was used to identify between-country differences in length of stay (LOS), as a parameter of healthcare consumption. Mixed generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link function quantified associations of patient characteristics with higher total costs. We included 4349 patients, of whom 2854 (66%) had mild, 371 (9%) had moderate, and 962 (22%) had severe TBI. Hospitalization accounted for the largest part of the intramural consumption and costs (60%). In the total study population, the mean LOS was 5.1 days at the intensive care unit (ICU) and 6.3 days at the ward. For mild, moderate, and severe TBI, mean LOS was, respectively, 1.8, 8.9, and 13.5 days at the ICU and 4.5, 10.1, and 10.3 days at the ward. Other large contributors to the total costs were rehabilitation (19%) and intracranial surgeries (8%). Total costs increased with higher age and greater trauma severity (mild; €3,800 [IQR €1,400-14,000], moderate; €37,800 [IQR €14,900-€74,200], severe; €60,400 [IQR €24,400-€112,700]). The adjusted analysis showed that female patients had lower costs than male patients (odds ratio (OR) 0.80 [CI 0.75-1.85]). Increasing TBI severity was associated with higher costs, OR 1.46 (confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.63) and OR 1.67 [CI 1.52-1.84] for moderate and severe patients, respectively. A worse pre-morbid overall health state, increasing age and more severe systemic trauma, expressed in the Injury Severity Score (ISS), were also significantly associated with higher costs. Intramural costs of TBI are significant and are profoundly driven by hospitalization. Costs increased with trauma severity and age, and male patients incurred higher costs. Reducing LOS could be targeted with advanced care planning, in order to provide cost-effective care.

Challenges Encountered in Surgical Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Need for Methodological Improvement of Future Studies.

BACKGROUND: Investigating neurosurgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (TBI) involves complex methodological and practical challenges. In the present report, we have provided an overview of the current state of neurosurgical TBI research and discussed the key challenges and possible solutions. METHODS: The content of our report was based on an extensive literature review and personal knowledge and expert opinions of senior neurosurgeon researchers and epidemiologists. RESULTS: Current best practice research strategies include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative effectiveness research. The performance of RCTs has been complicated by the heterogeneity of TBI patient populations with the associated sample size requirements, the traditional eminence-based neurosurgical culture, inadequate research budgets, and the often acutely life-threatening setting of severe TBI. Statistical corrections can mitigate the effects of heterogeneity, and increasing awareness of clinical equipoise and informed consent alternatives can improve trial efficiency. The substantial confounding by indication, which limits the interpretability of observational research, can be circumvented by using an instrumental variable analysis. Traditional TBI outcome measures remain relevant but do not adequately capture the subtleties of well-being, suggesting a need for multidimensional approaches to outcome assessments. CONCLUSIONS: In settings in which traditional RCTs are difficult to conduct and substantial confounding by indication can be present, observational studies using an instrumental variable analysis and "pragmatic" RCTs are promising alternatives. Embedding TBI research into standard clinical practice should be more frequently considered but will require fundamental modifications to the current health care system. Finally, multimodality outcome assessment will be key to improving future surgical and nonsurgical TBI research.

Randomized Evaluation of Surgery in Elderly with Traumatic Acute SubDural Hematoma (RESET-ASDH trial): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with multicenter parallel group design.

BACKGROUND: The rapidly increasing number of elderly (≥ 65 years old) with TBI is accompanied by substantial medical and economic consequences. An ASDH is the most common injury in elderly with TBI and the surgical versus conservative treatment of this patient group remains an important clinical dilemma. Current BTF guidelines are not based on high-quality evidence and compliance is low, allowing for large international treatment variation. The RESET-ASDH trial is an international multicenter RCT on the (cost-)effectiveness of early neurosurgical hematoma evacuation versus initial conservative treatment in elderly with a t-ASDH METHODS: In total, 300 patients will be recruited from 17 Belgian and Dutch trauma centers. Patients ≥ 65 years with at first presentation a GCS ≥ 9 and a t-ASDH > 10 mm or a t-ASDH < 10 mm and a midline shift > 5 mm, or a GCS < 9 with a traumatic ASDH < 10 mm and a midline shift < 5 mm without extracranial explanation for the comatose state, for whom clinical equipoise exists will be randomized to early surgical hematoma evacuation or initial conservative management with the possibility of delayed secondary surgery. When possible, patients or their legal representatives will be asked for consent before inclusion. When obtaining patient or proxy consent is impossible within the therapeutic time window, patients are enrolled using the deferred consent procedure. Medical-ethical approval was obtained in the Netherlands and Belgium. The choice of neurosurgical techniques will be left to the discretion of the neurosurgeon. Patients will be analyzed according to an intention-to-treat design. The primary endpoint will be functional outcome on the GOS-E after 1 year. Patient recruitment starts in 2022 with the exact timing depending on the current COVID-19 crisis and is expected to end in 2024. DISCUSSION: The study results will be implemented after publication and presented on international conferences. Depending on the trial results, the current Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines will either be substantiated by high-quality evidence or will have to be altered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL9012 . CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Trial NCT04648436 .

Long-term outcome after severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Expectation of long-term outcome is an important factor in treatment decision-making after severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI). Conclusive long-term outcome data substantiating these decisions is nowadays lacking. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the scientific literature on long-term outcome after sTBI. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed from 2008 to 2020. Studies were included when reporting long-term outcome ≥ 2 years after sTBI (GCS 3-8 or AIS head score ≥ 4), using standardized outcome measures. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the QUIPS tool. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies were included. Studies showed substantial variation in study objectives and study methodology. GOS-E (n = 12) and GOS (n = 8) were the most frequently used outcome measures. Mortality was reported in 46% of patients (range 18-75%). Unfavourable outcome rates ranged from 29 to 100% and full recovery was seen in 21-27% of patients. Most surviving patients reported SF-36 scores lower than the general population. CONCLUSION: Literature on long-term outcome after sTBI was limited and heterogeneous. Mortality and unfavourable outcome rates were high and persisting sequelae on multiple domains common. Nonetheless, a considerable proportion of survivors achieved favourable outcome. Future studies should incorporate standardized multidimensional and temporal long-term outcome measures to strengthen the evidence-base for acute and subacute decision-making. HIGHLIGHTS: 1. Expectation of long-term outcome is an important factor in treatment decision-making for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI). 2. Favourable outcome and full recovery after sTBI are possible, but mortality and unfavourable outcome rates are high. 3. sTBI survivors are likely to suffer from a wide range of long-term consequences, underscoring the need for long-term and multi-modality outcome assessment in future studies. 4. The quality of the scientific literature on long-term outcome after sTBI can and should be improved to advance treatment decision-making.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke.

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. METHODS: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. RESULTS: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). CONCLUSION: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.

Functional outcome, in-hospital healthcare consumption and in-hospital costs for hospitalised traumatic brain injury patients: a Dutch prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The high occurrence and acute and chronic sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) cause major healthcare and socioeconomic challenges. This study aimed to describe outcome, in-hospital healthcare consumption and in-hospital costs of patients with TBI. METHODS: We used data from hospitalised TBI patients that were included in the prospective observational CENTER-TBI study in three Dutch Level I Trauma Centres from 2015 to 2017. Clinical data was completed with data on in-hospital healthcare consumption and costs. TBI severity was classified using the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS). Patient outcome was measured by in-hospital mortality and Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended (GOSE) at 6 months. In-hospital costs were calculated following the Dutch guidelines for cost calculation. RESULTS: A total of 486 TBI patients were included. Mean age was 56.1 ± 22.4 years and mean GCS was 12.7 ± 3.8. Six-month mortality (4.2%-66.7%), unfavourable outcome (GOSE ≤ 4) (14.6%-80.4%) and full recovery (GOSE = 8) (32.5%-5.9%) rates varied from patients with mild TBI (GCS13-15) to very severe TBI (GCS3-5). Length of stay (8 ± 13 days) and in-hospital costs (€11,920) were substantial and increased with higher TBI severity, presence of intracranial abnormalities, extracranial injury and surgical intervention. Costs were primarily driven by admission (66%) and surgery (13%). CONCLUSION: In-hospital mortality and unfavourable outcome rates were rather high, but many patients also achieved full recovery. Hospitalised TBI patients show substantial in-hospital healthcare consumption and costs, even in patients with mild TBI. Because these costs are likely to be an underestimation of the actual total costs, more research is required to investigate the actual costs-effectiveness of TBI care.

Coagulopathy after hemorrhagic traumatic brain injury, an observational study of the incidence and prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Trauma patients with a coagulopathy have a 10-fold increased mortality risk compared to patients without a coagulopathy. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of coagulopathy and relate early coagulopathy to clinical outcome in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhages. METHODS: Between September 2015 and December 2016, 108 consecutive cranial trauma patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhages were included in this study. To assess the relationship between patients with a coagulopathy and outcome, a chi-squared test was performed. RESULTS: A total of 29 out of the 108 patients (27%) with a traumatic intracranial hemorrhage developed a coagulopathy within 72 h after admission. Overall, a total of 22 patients (20%) died after admission of which ten were coagulopathic at emergency department presentation. Early coagulopathy in patients with traumatic brain injury is associated with progression of hemorrhagic injury (odds ratio 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-8.0)), surgical intervention (odds ratio 2.8 (95% confidence interval 0.87-9.35)), and increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 23.06 (95% confidence interval 5.5-95.9)). CONCLUSION: Patients who sustained a traumatic intracranial hemorrhage remained at risk for developing a coagulopathy until 72 h after trauma. Patients who developed a coagulopathy had a worse clinical outcome than patients who did not develop a coagulopathy.

The patient with severe traumatic brain injury: clinical decision-making: the first 60 min and beyond.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an urgent need to discuss the uncertainties and paradoxes in clinical decision-making after severe traumatic brain injury (s-TBI). This could improve transparency, reduce variability of practice and enhance shared decision-making with proxies. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical decision-making on initiation, continuation and discontinuation of medical treatment may encompass substantial consequences as well as lead to presumed patient benefits. Such decisions, unfortunately, often lack transparency and may be controversial in nature. The very process of decision-making is frequently characterized by both a lack of objective criteria and the absence of validated prognostic models that could predict relevant outcome measures, such as long-term quality and satisfaction with life. In practice, while treatment-limiting decisions are often made in patients during the acute phase immediately after s-TBI, other such severely injured TBI patients have been managed with continued aggressive medical care, and surgical or other procedural interventions have been undertaken in the context of pursuing a more favorable patient outcome. Given this spectrum of care offered to identical patient cohorts, there is clearly a need to identify and decrease existing selectivity, and better ascertain the objective criteria helpful towards more consistent decision-making and thereby reduce the impact of subjective valuations of predicted patient outcome. SUMMARY: Recent efforts by multiple medical groups have contributed to reduce uncertainty and to improve care and outcome along the entire chain of care. Although an unlimited endeavor for sustaining life seems unrealistic, treatment-limiting decisions should not deprive patients of a chance on achieving an outcome they would have considered acceptable.

Correction: In-hospital costs after severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and quality assessment.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216743.].

In-hospital costs after severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: The in-hospital treatment of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered to be expensive, especially in patients with severe TBI (s-TBI). To improve future treatment decision-making, resource allocation and research initiatives, this study reviewed the in-hospital costs for patients with s-TBI and the quality of study methodology. METHODS: A systematic search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CENTRAL, Emcare, PsychINFO, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Articles published before August 2018 reporting in-hospital acute care costs for patients with s-TBI were included. Quality was assessed by using a 19-item checklist based on the CHEERS statement. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 2372 articles were included. In-hospital costs per patient were generally high and ranged from $2,130 to $401,808. Variation between study results was primarily caused by methodological heterogeneity and variable patient and treatment characteristics. The quality assessment showed variable study quality with a mean total score of 71% (range 48% - 96%). Especially items concerning cost data scored poorly (49%) because data source, cost calculation methodology and outcome reporting were regularly unmentioned or inadequately reported. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare consumption and in-hospital costs for patients with s-TBI were high and varied widely between studies. Costs were primarily driven by the length of stay and surgical intervention and increased with higher TBI severity. However, drawing firm conclusions on the actual in-hospital costs of patients sustaining s-TBI was complicated due to variation and inadequate quality of the included studies. Future economic evaluations should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies and use guideline recommendations and common data elements to improve study quality.

Functional and patient-reported outcome versus in-hospital costs after traumatic acute subdural hematoma (t-ASDH): a neurosurgical paradox?

BACKGROUND: The decision whether to operate or not in patients with a traumatic acute subdural hematoma (t-ASDH) can, in many cases, be a neurosurgical dilemma. There is a general conception that operating on severe cases leads to the survival of severely disabled patients and is associated with relatively high medical costs. There is however little information on the quality of life of patients after operation for t-ASDH, let alone on the cost-effectiveness. METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated patient outcome and in-hospital costs for 108 consecutive patients with a t-ASDH. Patient outcome was assessed using the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) and the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)-specific QOLIBRI questionnaire. The in-hospital costs were calculated using the Dutch guidelines for costs calculation. RESULTS: Out of 108 patients, 40 were classified as having sustained a mild (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 13-15), 19 a moderate (GCS 9-12), and 49 a severe (GCS 3-8) TBI. As expected, mortality rates increased with higher TBI severity (23%, 47%, and 61% respectively), whereas the chance for favorable outcome (GOS 4-5) decreased (72%, 47%, and 29%). Interestingly, the mean QOLIBRI scores for survivors were quite similar between the TBI severity groups (61, 61, and 64). Healthcare consumption and in-hospital costs increased with TBI severity. In-hospital costs were relatively high (€24,980), especially after emergency surgery (€28,670) and when additional ICP monitoring was used (€36,580). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study confirms that outcome is often "unfavorable" after t-ASDH, it also shows that "favorable" outcome can be achieved, even in the most severely injured patients. In-hospital treatment costs were substantial and mainly related to TBI severity, with admission and surgery as main cost drivers. These results serve as a basis for necessary future research focusing on the value-based cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of patients with a t-ASDH.

Brain death and postmortem organ donation: report of a questionnaire from the CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the extent of the agreement on practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. METHODS: Investigators from 67 Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study centers completed several questionnaires (response rate: 99%). RESULTS: Regarding practices around brain death, we found agreement on the clinical evaluation (prerequisites and neurological assessment) for brain death determination (BDD) in 100% of the centers. However, ancillary tests were required for BDD in 64% of the centers. BDD for nondonor patients was deemed mandatory in 18% of the centers before withdrawing life-sustaining measures (LSM). Also, practices around postmortem organ donation varied. Organ donation after circulatory arrest was forbidden in 45% of the centers. When withdrawal of LSM was contemplated, in 67% of centers the patients with a ventricular drain in situ had this removed, either sometimes or all of the time. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed both agreement and some regional differences regarding practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. We hope our results help quantify and understand potential differences, and provide impetus for current dialogs toward further harmonization of practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation.