Objective: To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)-driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)... Show moreObjective: To compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)-driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)-driven treatment.Methods: The CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with "center" as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome. Results: A total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36-1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34-2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs. Conclusion: We found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor-guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group. Show less
AbstractBackground: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further... Show moreAbstractBackground: 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.Keywords: CENTER-TBI; European Union; Harmonization; Health-care research; Research ethic committees. Show less
Purpose To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers.... Show morePurpose To describe ICU stay, selected management aspects, and outcome of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe, and to quantify variation across centers. Methods This is a prospective observational multicenter study conducted across 18 countries in Europe and Israel. Admission characteristics, clinical data, and outcome were described at patient- and center levels. Between-center variation in the total ICU population was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR), with correction for case-mix and random variation between centers. Results A total of 2138 patients were admitted to the ICU, with median age of 49 years; 36% of which were mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale; GCS 13-15). Within, 72 h 636 (30%) were discharged and 128 (6%) died. Early deaths and long-stay patients (> 72 h) had more severe injuries based on the GCS and neuroimaging characteristics, compared with short-stay patients. Long-stay patients received more monitoring and were treated at higher intensity, and experienced worse 6-month outcome compared to short-stay patients. Between-center variations were prominent in the proportion of short-stay patients (MOR = 2.3, p < 0.001), use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (MOR = 2.5, p < 0.001) and aggressive treatments (MOR = 2.9, p < 0.001); and smaller in 6-month outcome (MOR = 1.2, p = 0.01). Conclusions Half of contemporary TBI patients at the ICU have mild to moderate head injury. Substantial between-center variations exist in ICU stay and treatment policies, and less so in outcome. It remains unclear whether admission of short-stay patients represents appropriate prudence or inappropriate use of clinical resources. Show less
