Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: A scoping review and expert consultation survey.

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of health care resources. Choosing Wisely and other organizations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a five-point Likert scale from clearly low value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low value by at least one level I, II, or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these, 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit, and 5 in orthopedics. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSION: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step toward the deimplementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, Level IV.

Hospital length of stay following admission for traumatic brain injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of disability in children and young adults and costs CAD$3 billion annually in Canada. Stakeholders have expressed the urgent need to obtain information on resource use for TBI to improve the quality and efficiency of acute care in this patient population. We aimed to assess the components and determinants of hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on 11,199 adults admitted for TBI between 2007 and 2012 in an inclusive Canadian trauma system. Our primary outcome measure was index hospital LOS (admission to the hospital with the highest designation level). Index LOS was compared to total LOS (all consecutive admissions related to the injury). Expected LOS was calculated by matching TBI admissions to all-diagnosis hospital admissions by age, gender, and year of admission. LOS determinants were identified using multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Geometric mean total LOS was 1day longer than geometric mean index LOS (12.6 versus 11.7 days). Observed index and ICU LOS were respectively 4.2days and 2.5days longer than that expected according to all-diagnosis admissions. The six most important determinants of LOS were discharge destination, severity of concomitant injuries, extracranial complications, GCS, TBI severity, and mechanical ventilation, accounting for 80% of explained variation. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this multicenter retrospective cohort study suggest that hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions are 56% and 119% longer than expected according to all-diagnosis admissions, respectively. In addition, hospital LOS is underestimated when only the index visit is considered and is largely influenced by discharge destination and extracranial complications, suggesting that improvements could be achieved with better discharge planning and interventions targeting prevention of in-hospital complications. This study highlights the importance of considering TBI patients as a distinct population when allocating resources or planning quality improvement interventions.

An institutional study of time delays for symptomatic carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess time delays between first cerebrovascular symptoms and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) at a single center and to systematically evaluate causes of these delays. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients who underwent CEAs between January 2010 and September 2011 at a single university-affiliated center (Centre Hospitalier de l'Université Montréal-Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Montreal) were identified from a clinical database and operative records. Covariates of interest were extracted from electronic medical records. Timing and nature of the first cerebrovascular symptoms were also documented. The first medical contact and pathway of referral were also assessed. When possible, the ABCD2 score (age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, and diabetes) was calculated to calculate further risk of stroke. The nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences in time intervals between two variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in time intervals in comparing more than two variables. A multivariate linear regression analysis was performed using covariates that were determined to be statistically significant in our sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 111 patients with documented symptomatic carotid stenosis undergoing surgical intervention. Thirty-nine percent of all patients were operated on within 2 weeks from the first cerebrovascular symptoms. The median time between the occurrence of the first neurologic symptom and the CEA procedure was 25 (interquartile range [IQR], 11-85) days. The patient-dependent delay, defined as the median delay between the first neurologic symptom and the first medical contact, was 1 (IQR, 0-14) day. The medical-dependent delay was defined as the time interval between the first medical contact and CEA. This included the delay between the first medical contact and the request for surgery consultation (median, 3 [IQR, 1-10] days). The multivariate regression model demonstrated that the emergency physician as referral source (P = .0002) was statistically significant for reducing CEA delay. Patients who were investigated as an outpatient (P = .02), first medical contact with a general practitioner (P = .0002), and hospital center I as referral center (P = .045) were also found to be statistically significant to extend CEA delay when the model was adjusted over all covariates. In this center, there was no correlation between ABCD2 risk score and waiting time for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our cohort falls short of the recommended 2-week interval to perform CEA. Factors contributing to reduced CEA delay were presentation to an emergency department, in-patient investigations, and a stroke center where a vascular surgeon is available.