A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Pilot Multidisciplinary Breathlessness Support Service.

Breathlessness support services have demonstrated benefits for breathlessness mastery, quality of life and psychosocial outcomes for people living with breathlessness. However, these services have predominantly been implemented in hospital and home care contexts. This study aims to evaluate the adaptation and implementation of a hospice-based outpatient Multidisciplinary Breathlessness Support Service (MBSS) in Ireland. A sequential explanatory mixed methods design guided this study. People with chronic breathlessness participated in longitudinal questionnaires (n = 10), medical record audit (n = 14) and a post-discharge interview (n = 8). Caregivers (n = 1) and healthcare professionals involved in referral to (n = 2) and delivery of (n = 3) the MBSS participated in a cross-sectional interview. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated deductively via the pillar integration process, guided by the RE-AIM framework. Integration of mixed methods data enhanced understanding of factors influencing the reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance of the MBSS, and the potential outcomes that were most meaningful for service users. Potential threats to the sustainability of the MBSS related to potential preconceptions of hospice care, the lack of standardized discharge pathways from the service and access to primary care services to sustain pharmacological interventions. This study suggests that an adapted multidisciplinary breathlessness support intervention is feasible and acceptable in a hospice context. However, to ensure optimal reach and maintenance of the intervention, activities are required to ensure that misconceptions about the setting do not influence willingness to accept referral to MBSS services and integration of services is needed to enable consistency in referral and discharge processes.

Advancing care for traumatic brain injury: findings from the IMPACT studies and perspectives on future research.

Research in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging for several reasons; in particular, the heterogeneity between patients regarding causes, pathophysiology, treatment, and outcome. Advances in basic science have failed to translate into successful clinical treatments, and the evidence underpinning guideline recommendations is weak. Because clinical research has been hampered by non-standardised data collection, restricted multidisciplinary collaboration, and the lack of sensitivity of classification and efficacy analyses, multidisciplinary collaborations are now being fostered. Approaches to deal with heterogeneity have been developed by the IMPACT study group. These approaches can increase statistical power in clinical trials by up to 50% and are also relevant to other heterogeneous neurological diseases, such as stroke and subarachnoid haemorrhage. Rather than trying to limit heterogeneity, we might also be able to exploit it by analysing differences in treatment and outcome between countries and centres in comparative effectiveness research. This approach has great potential to advance care in patients with TBI.

Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models.

OBJECTIVE: The International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury prognostic models predict outcome after traumatic brain injury but have not been compared in large datasets. The objective of this is study is to validate externally and compare the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and Corticoid Randomisation after Significant Head injury prognostic models for prediction of outcome after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: External validation study. PATIENTS: We considered five new datasets with a total of 9,036 patients, comprising three randomized trials and two observational series, containing prospectively collected individual traumatic brain injury patient data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome, based on the Glasgow Outcome Score at 6 months after injury. To assess performance, we studied the discrimination of the models (by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves), and calibration (by comparison of the mean observed to predicted outcomes and calibration slopes). The highest discrimination was found in the Trauma Audit and Research Network trauma registry (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves between 0.83 and 0.87), and the lowest discrimination in the Pharmos trial (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves between 0.65 and 0.71). Although differences in predictor effects between development and validation populations were found (calibration slopes varying between 0.58 and 1.53), the differences in discrimination were largely explained by differences in case mix in the validation studies. Calibration was good, the fraction of observed outcomes generally agreed well with the mean predicted outcome. No meaningful differences were noted in performance between the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury models. More complex models discriminated slightly better than simpler variants. CONCLUSIONS: Since both the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and the Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury prognostic models show good generalizability to more recent data, they are valid instruments to quantify prognosis in traumatic brain injury.

Does the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale add value to the conventional Glasgow Outcome Scale?

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) is firmly established as the primary outcome measure for use in Phase III trials of interventions in traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the GOS has been criticized for its lack of sensitivity to detect small but clinically relevant changes in outcome. The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) potentially addresses this criticism, and in this study we estimate the efficiency gain associated with using the GOSE in place of the GOS in ordinal analysis of 6-month outcome. The study uses both simulation and the reanalysis of existing data from two completed TBI studies, one an observational cohort study and the other a randomized controlled trial. As expected, the results show that using an ordinal technique to analyze the GOS gives a substantial gain in efficiency relative to the conventional analysis, which collapses the GOS onto a binary scale (favorable versus unfavorable outcome). We also found that using the GOSE gave a modest but consistent increase in efficiency relative to the GOS in both studies, corresponding to a reduction in the required sample size of the order of 3-5%. We recommend that the GOSE be used in place of the GOS as the primary outcome measure in trials of TBI, with an appropriate ordinal approach being taken to the statistical analysis.

IMPACT recommendations for improving the design and analysis of clinical trials in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.

Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) pose complex methodological challenges, largely related to the heterogeneity of the population. The International Mission on Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in TBI study group has explored approaches for dealing with this heterogeneity with the aim to optimize clinical trials in TBI. Extensive prognostic analyses and simulation studies were conducted on individual patient data from eight trials and three observational studies. Here, we integrate the results of these studies into the International Mission on Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in TBI recommendations for design and analysis of trials in TBI: Details of the major baseline prognostic characteristics should be provided in every report on a TBI study; in trials they should be differentiated per treatment group. We also advocate the reporting of the baseline prognostic risk as determined by validated prognostic models. Inclusion criteria should be as broad as is compatible with the current understanding of the mechanisms of action of the intervention being evaluated. This will maximize recruitment rates and enhance the generalizability of the results. The statistical analysis should incorporate prespecified covariate adjustment to mitigate the effects of the heterogeneity. The statistical analysis should use an ordinal approach, based on either sliding dichotomy or proportional odds methodology. Broad inclusion criteria, prespecified covariate adjustment, and an ordinal analysis will promote an efficient trial, yielding gains in statistical efficiency of more than 40%. This corresponds to being able to detect a 7% treatment effect with the same number of patients needed to demonstrate a 10% difference with an unadjusted analysis based on the dichotomized Glasgow outcome scale.

A simulation study evaluating approaches to the analysis of ordinal outcome data in randomized controlled trials in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT Project.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury have a disappointing track record, with a long history of 'negative' Phase III trials. One contributor to this lack of success is almost certainly the low efficiency of the conventional approach to the analysis, which discards information by dichotomizing an ordinal outcome scale. PURPOSE: Our goal was to evaluate the potential efficiency gains, which can be achieved by using techniques, which extract additional information from ordinal outcome data - the proportional odds model and the sliding dichotomy. In addition, we evaluated the additional efficiency gains, which can be achieved through covariate adjustment. METHODS: The study was based on simulations, which were built around a database of patient-level data extracted from eight Phase III trials and three observational studies in traumatic brain injury. Two different putative treatment effects were explored, one which followed the proportional odds model, and the other which assumed that the effect of the intervention was to reduce the risk of death without changing the distribution of outcomes within survivors. The results are expressed as efficiency gains, reported as the percentage reduction in sample size that can be used with the ordinal analyses without loss of statistical power relative to the conventional binary analysis. RESULTS: The simulation results show substantial efficiency gains. Use of the sliding dichotomy allows sample sizes to be reduced by up to 40% without loss of statistical power. The proportional odds model gives modest additional gains over and above the gains achieved by use of the sliding dichotomy. LIMITATIONS: As with any simulation study, it is difficult to know how far the findings may be extrapolated beyond the actual situations that were modeled. CONCLUSIONS: Both ordinal techniques offer substantial efficiency gains relative to the conventional binary analysis. The choice between the two techniques involves subtle value judgments. In the situations examined, the proportional odds model gave efficiency gains over and above the sliding dichotomy, but arguably, the sliding dichotomy is more intuitive and clinically appealing.

Baseline characteristics and statistical power in randomized controlled trials: selection, prognostic targeting, or covariate adjustment?

OBJECTIVE: Heterogeneity of patients is a common problem in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in various fields of clinical research. We aimed to investigate the potential benefits of different approaches for dealing with heterogeneity in a case study on traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN AND SETTING: Statistical modeling studies in three surveys and six randomized controlled trials. PATIENTS: Individual patient data (n = 8033) from the IMPACT database. INTERVENTIONS: We investigated the statistical power and efficiency of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to (1) selection according to baseline characteristics, (2) prognostic targeting (i.e., excluding those with a relatively extreme prognosis), and (3) covariate-adjusted analysis. Statistical power was expressed as the required sample size for obtaining 80% power and efficiency as the relative change in study duration, reflecting both gains in power and adverse effects on recruitment. Uniform and targeted treatment effects were simulated for 6 month unfavorable outcome. RESULTS: For a uniform treatment effect, selection resulted ina sample size reduction of 33% in the surveys and 5% in the RCTs, but decreased recruitment by 65% and 41%, respectively. Hence, the relative study duration was prolonged (surveys: 95%; RCTs: 60%). Prognostic targeting resulted in sample size reductions of 28% and 17%, and increased relative study duration by 5% in surveys and 11% in the RCTs. Covariate adjustment reduced sample sizes by 30% and 16%, respectively, and did not affect recruitment. For a targeted treatment effect, the sample size reductions by selection (surveys: 47%; RCTs: 20%) and prognostic targeting (surveys: 49%; RCTs: 41%) were larger and adverse effects on recruitment smaller. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of selection and prognostic targeting in terms of statistical power are reversed by adverse effects on recruitment. Covariate adjusted analysis in a broadly selected group of patients is advisable if a uniform treatment effect is assumed, since there is no decrease in recruitment.

Patient and general practitioner preferences for the treatment of depression in patients with cancer: how, who, and where?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine and compare patient and general practitioner (GP) preferences for the treatment of depression in patients with cancer. METHODS: A treatment preference questionnaire was completed by 100 patients who had been diagnosed with both cancer and major depressive disorder and by 86 GPs who had had experience of at least 1 patient with cancer and depression. Participants were asked to rank options for how depression should be treated, who should deliver the treatment, and where treatment should occur. RESULTS: The top three preferences of patients and GPs for how depression should be treated differed (P<.001). Patients preferred talking treatment alone, whereas GPs preferred a combination of drug and talking treatment. Both patients and GPs preferred treatment to be given by the GP, with older patients having a stronger preference for this. Counselors and cancer nurses were also popular preferences; mental heath professionals were unpopular. The preferred place of treatment was primary care for both patients and GPs, although many patients preferred treatment in the cancer center. CONCLUSION: Effective and acceptable services for depressed cancer patients need to take patients and GP preferences into account. A model of service that allows a choice of initial treatment modality and collaborative care between primary care and cancer center nurse would meet this requirement.

The influence of enrollment criteria on recruitment and outcome distribution in traumatic brain injury studies: results from the impact study.

Substantial heterogeneity exists among patients who suffer from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Strict enrollment criteria may diminish heterogeneity in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but will also decrease recruitment and may affect the outcome distribution. The aim of this study was to investigate the influences of commonly used enrollment criteria for RCTs in TBI on potential recruitment and on outcome distribution. We used individual patient data from the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) database, including six therapeutic phase III RCTs (n = 5816) and three surveys (n = 2217) in TBI. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at 6 months after injury, which we dichotomized as favorable/unfavorable. We investigated the influences of commonly used enrollment criteria on recruitment and outcome distribution: time window between injury and admission to study hospital or= 1 reactive pupil; motor score > 1; Glasgow Coma Scale

Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability. A reliable prediction of outcome on admission is of great clinical relevance. We aimed to develop prognostic models with readily available traditional and novel predictors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Prospectively collected individual patient data were analyzed from 11 studies. We considered predictors available at admission in logistic regression models to predict mortality and unfavorable outcome according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale at 6 mo after injury. Prognostic models were developed in 8,509 patients with severe or moderate TBI, with cross-validation by omission of each of the 11 studies in turn. External validation was on 6,681 patients from the recent Medical Research Council Corticosteroid Randomisation after Significant Head Injury (MRC CRASH) trial. We found that the strongest predictors of outcome were age, motor score, pupillary reactivity, and CT characteristics, including the presence of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. A prognostic model that combined age, motor score, and pupillary reactivity had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between 0.66 and 0.84 at cross-validation. This performance could be improved (AUC increased by approximately 0.05) by considering CT characteristics, secondary insults (hypotension and hypoxia), and laboratory parameters (glucose and hemoglobin). External validation confirmed that the discriminative ability of the model was adequate (AUC 0.80). Outcomes were systematically worse than predicted, but less so in 1,588 patients who were from high-income countries in the CRASH trial. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic models using baseline characteristics provide adequate discrimination between patients with good and poor 6 mo outcomes after TBI, especially if CT and laboratory findings are considered in addition to traditional predictors. The model predictions may support clinical practice and research, including the design and analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Management of depression for people with cancer (SMaRT oncology 1): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder severely impairs the quality of life of patients with medical disorders such as cancer, but evidence to guide its management is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and cost of a nurse-delivered complex intervention that was designed to treat major depressive disorder in patients who have cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised trial in a regional cancer centre in Scotland, UK. 200 outpatients who had cancer with a prognosis of greater than 6 months and major depressive disorder (identified by screening) were eligible and agreed to take part. Their mean age was 56.6 (SD 11.9) years, and 141 (71%) were women. We randomly assigned 99 of these participants to usual care, and 101 to usual care plus the intervention, with minimisation for sex, age, diagnosis, and extent of disease. The intervention was delivered by a cancer nurse at the centre over an average of seven sessions. The primary outcome was the difference in mean score on the self-reported Symptom Checklist-20 depression scale (range 0 to 4) at 3 months after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as ISRCTN84767225. FINDINGS: Primary outcome data were missing for four patients. For 196 patients for whom we had data at 3 months, the adjusted difference in mean Symptom Checklist-20 depression score, between those who received the intervention and those who did not, was 0.34 (95% CI 0.13-0.55). This treatment effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months. The intervention also improved anxiety and fatigue but not pain or physical functioning. It cost an additional pound sterling 5278 (US$10 556) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. INTERPRETATION: The intervention-Depression Care for People with Cancer-offers a model for the management of major depressive disorder in patients with cancer and other medical disorders who are attending specialist medical services that is feasible, acceptable, and potentially cost effective.

Effects of Glasgow Outcome Scale misclassification on traumatic brain injury clinical trials.

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) is the primary endpoint for efficacy analysis of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Accurate and consistent assessment of outcome after TBI is essential to the evaluation of treatment results, particularly in the context of multicenter studies and trials. The inconsistent measurement or interobserver variation on GOS outcome, or for that matter, on any outcome scales, may adversely affect the sensitivity to detect treatment effects in clinical trial. The objective of this study is to examine effects of nondifferential misclassification of the widely used five-category GOS outcome scale and in particular to assess the impact of this misclassification on detecting a treatment effect and statistical power. We followed two approaches. First, outcome differences were analyzed before and after correction for misclassification using a dataset of 860 patients with severe brain injury randomly sampled from two TBI trials with known differences in outcome. Second, the effects of misclassification on outcome distribution and statistical power were analyzed in simulation studies on a hypothetical 800-patient dataset. Three potential patterns of nondifferential misclassification (random, upward and downward) on the dichotomous GOS outcome were analyzed, and the power of finding treatments differences was investigated in detail. All three patterns of misclassification reduce the power of detecting the true treatment effect and therefore lead to a reduced estimation of the true efficacy. The magnitude of such influence not only depends on the size of the misclassification, but also on the magnitude of the treatment effect. In conclusion, nondifferential misclassification directly reduces the power of finding the true treatment effect. An awareness of this procedural error and methods to reduce misclassification should be incorporated in TBI clinical trials.

Performance of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale as a screening tool for major depressive disorder in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the overall performance of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as a screening instrument to identify cases of major depressive disorder (MDD) in mixed cancer outpatients. (2) To determine the sensitivity and specificity of various HADS cut-off scores. (3) To recommend an optimal HADS cut-off score for use in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire and interview survey of consecutive patients attending outpatient clinics in a regional cancer centre in Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. RESULTS: Thirty (8.3%) of 361 patients met criteria for MDD at interview. With the use of the total HADS score to identify these cases of MDD, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.97). A cut-off of 14/15 gave a sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95), a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89), and a positive predictive value of 0.35, and was considered optimal. CONCLUSION: The HADS can be used effectively as an initial screening tool for the detection of MDD in outpatients attending mixed cancer clinics.

IMPACT database of traumatic brain injury: design and description.

The objective of this report is to describe the design and content of the International Mission for Prognosis And Clinical Trial (IMPACT) database of traumatic brain injury which contains the complete dataset from most clinical trials and organized epidemiologic studies conducted over the past 20 years. This effort, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, has led to the accumulation thus far of data from 9205 patients with severe and moderate brain injuries from eight randomized placebo controlled trials and three observational studies. Data relevant to the design and analysis of pragmatic Phase III clinical trials, including pre-hospital, admission, and post-resuscitation assessments, information on the acute management, and short- and long-term outcome were merged into a top priority data set (TPDS). The major emphasis during the first phase of study is on information from time of injury to post-resuscitation and outcome at 6 months thereby providing a unique resource for prognostic analysis and for studies aimed at optimizing the design and analysis of Phase III trials in traumatic brain injury.

Statistical approaches to the univariate prognostic analysis of the IMPACT database on traumatic brain injury.

The univariate prognostic analysis of the IMPACT database on traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses the formidable challenge of how best to summarize a highly complex set of data in a way which is accessible without being overly simplistic. In this paper, we describe and illustrate the battery of statistical methods that have been used. Boxplots, histograms, tabulations, and splines were used for initial data checking and in identifying appropriate transformations for more formal statistical modeling. Imputation techniques were used to minimize the problems associated with the analysis of incomplete data due to missing values. The associations between covariates and outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] assessed at 6 months) were expressed as odds ratios with supporting confidence intervals when the GOS was collapsed to a dichotomous scale. This was extended to use common odds ratios from proportional odds models to express associations over the full range of the GOS. Forest plots were used to illustrate the consistency of results from study to study within the IMPACT database. The overall prognostic strength of the prognostic factors was expressed as the proportion of variance explained (Nagelkerke's R(2) statistic). Many of our approaches are based on simple graphical displays of the data, but, where appropriate, we have also used methods that although established in the statistical literature are relatively novel in their application to TBI.

Prognostic value of demographic characteristics in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.

Outcome following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is not only dependent on the nature and severity of injury and subsequent treatment, but also on constituent characteristics of injured individuals. We aimed to describe and quantify the relationship between demographic characteristics and six month outcome assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) after TBI. Individual patient data on age (n = 8719), gender (n = 8720), race (n = 5320), and education (n = 2201) were extracted from eight therapeutic Phase III randomized clinical trials and three surveys in moderate or severe TBI, contained in the IMPACT database. The strength of prognostic effects was analyzed with binary and proportional odds regression analysis and expressed as an odds ratio. Age was analyzed as a continuous variable with spline functions, and the odds ratio calculated over the difference between the 75 th and 25 th percentiles. Associations with other predictors were explored. Increasing age was strongly related to poorer outcome (OR 2.14; 95% CI 2.00-2.28) in a continuous fashion that could be approximated by a linear function. No gender differences in outcome were found (OR: 1.01; CI 0.92-1.11), and exploratory analysis failed to show any gender/age interaction. The studies included predominantly Caucasians (83%); outcome in black patients was poorer relative to this group (OR 1.30; CI 1.09-1.56). This relationship was sustained on adjusted analyses, and requires further study into mediating factors. Higher levels of education were weakly related to a better outcome (OR: 0.70; CI 0.52-0.94). On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, motor score, and pupils, the prognostic effect of race and education were sustained. We conclude that outcome following TBI is dependent on age, race, to a lesser extent on education, but not on gender.

Prognostic value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and pupil reactivity in traumatic brain injury assessed pre-hospital and on enrollment: an IMPACT analysis.

We studied the prognostic strength of the individual components of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and pupil reactivity to Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) at 6 months post-injury. A total of 8721 moderate or severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patient data from the IMPACT database on traumatic brain injury comprised the study cohort. The associations between motor score and pupil reactivity and 6-month GOS were analyzed by binary logistic regression and proportional odds methodology. The strength of prognostic effects were expressed as the unadjusted odds ratios presented for all individual studies as well as in meta-analysis. We found a consistent strong association between motor score and 6-month GOS across all studies (OR 1.74-7.48). The Eye and Verbal components were also strongly associated with GOS. In the pooled population, one or both un-reactive pupils and lower motor scores were significantly associated with unfavorable outcome (range 2.71-7.31). We also found a significant change in motor score from pre-hospital direct to study hospital enrollment ( p < 0.0001) and from the first in-hospital to study enrollment scores (p < 0.0001). Pupil reactivity was more robust between these time points. It is recommended that the study hospital enrollment GCS and pupil reactivity be used for prognostic analysis.

Prognostic value of cause of injury in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.

We aimed to describe and quantify the relationship between cause of injury and final outcome following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Individual patient data (N = 8708) from eight therapeutic Phase III randomized clinical trials in moderate or severe TBI, and three TBI surveys were used to investigate the relationship between cause of injury and outcome, as assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at 6 months. Proportional odds methodology was applied to quantify the strength of the association and expressed as an odds ratio in a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed and associations with other predictive factors explored. In a univariate analysis, a strong association between the cause of injury and long-term outcome in moderate to severe TBI patients was observed, with consistent results across the studies. Road traffic accidents (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60-0.73), assaults (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84), and injuries sustained during sporting or recreational activities (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.71) were all associated with better outcomes than the reference category of falls. Falls were found to be associated with an older age and with a higher incidence of mass lesions. Following adjustment for age in the analysis, the relationship between cause of injury and outcome was lost.

Prognostic value of secondary insults in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.

We determined the relationship between secondary insults (hypoxia, hypotension, and hypothermia) occurring prior to or on admission to hospital and 6-month outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). A meta-analysis of individual patient data, from seven Phase III randomized clinical trials (RCT) in moderate or severe TBI and three TBI population-based series, was performed to model outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). Proportional odds modeling was used to relate the probability of a poor outcome to hypoxia (N = 5661), hypotension ( N = 6629), and hypothermia ( N = 4195) separately. We additionally analyzed the combined effects of hypoxia and hypotension and performed exploratory analysis of associations with computerized tomography (CT) classification and month of injury. Having a pre-enrollment insult of hypoxia, hypotension or hypothermia is strongly associated with a poorer outcome (odds ratios of 2.1 95% CI [1.7-2.6], 2.7 95% CI [2.1-3.4], and 2.2 95% CI [1.6-3.2], respectively). Patients with both hypoxia and hypotension had poorer outcomes than those with either insult alone. Radiological signs of raised intracranial pressure (CT class III or IV) were more frequent in patients who had sustained hypoxia or hypotension. A significant association was observed between month of injury and hypothermia. The occurrence of secondary insults prior to or on admission to hospital in TBI patients is strongly related to poorer outcome and should therefore be a priority for emergency department personnel.

Prognostic value of admission blood pressure in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.

Hypotension following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is recognized as an important secondary insult that is associated with adverse outcome. We aimed to describe the relationship between actual levels of admission blood pressure and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at 6 months. Individual patient data from the IMPACT database were available on systolic (N = 6801) and mean arterial (N = 6647) blood pressure. Regression models with restricted cubic spline functions were used to explore the shape of the relationships between blood pressure and outcome in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Proportional odds methodology was applied to quantify the strength of the associations across the full range of the GOS. Analyses were performed to search for threshold values. A smooth U-shaped relationship was observed between systolic (SBP) and mean arterial (MABP) blood pressures and outcome, without any evidence of an abrupt threshold effect. Best outcomes were observed for values of SBP of the order of 135 mm Hg and for values of MABP of the order of 90 mm Hg. Both lower (OR 1.53; 95% CI: 1.31-1.80) and higher levels (OR 1.42; CI: 1.20-1.68) of SBP and lower (OR 1.30; CI 1.12-1.51) and higher levels of MABP (OR 1.45; CI 1.19-1.76) were associated with poorer outcome. These findings were consistent across studies. The relationship between high blood pressure level and poorer outcome largely disappeared on adjusted analysis. Current guidelines for the management of blood pressure in TBI focus on the avoidance of hypotension as defined by SBP < 90 mm Hg. Our finding of a smooth relationship with improving outcome as SBP increases up to 135 mm Hg, while not supporting a strong causal inference, does suggest that current guidelines need to be reconsidered.