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
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the most fatal and debilitating conditions in the world. Current clinical management in severe TBI patients is mainly concerned with reducing secondary... Show moreTraumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the most fatal and debilitating conditions in the world. Current clinical management in severe TBI patients is mainly concerned with reducing secondary insults and optimizing the balance between substrate delivery and consumption. Over the past decades, multimodality monitoring has become more widely available, and clinical management protocols have been published that recommend potential interventions to correct pathophysiological derangements. Even while evidence from randomized clinical trials is still lacking for many of the recommended interventions, these protocols and algorithms can be useful to define a clear standard of therapy where novel interventions can be added or be compared to. Over the past decade, more attention has been paid to holistic management, in which hemodynamic, respiratory, inflammatory or coagulation disturbances are detected and treated accordingly. Considerable variability with regards to the trajectories of recovery exists. Even while most of the recovery occurs in the first months after TBI, substantial changes may still occur in a later phase. Neuroprognostication is challenging in these patients, where a risk of self-fulfilling prophecies is a matter of concern. The present article provides a comprehensive and practical review of the current best practice in clinical management and long-term outcomes of moderate to severe TBI in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Show less
The aims of this study are to describe the use of pharmaceutical venous thromboembolism (pVTE) prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe and study the association of pVTE... Show moreThe aims of this study are to describe the use of pharmaceutical venous thromboembolism (pVTE) prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe and study the association of pVTE prophylaxis with outcome. We included 2006 patients >= 18 years of age admitted to the intensive care unit from the CENTER-TBI study. VTE events were recorded based on clinical symptoms. Variation between 54 centers in pVTE prophylaxis use was assessed with a multi-variate random-effect model and quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). The association between pVTE prophylaxis and outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months) was assessed at center level with an instrumental variable analysis and at patient level with a multi-variate proportional odds regression analysis and a propensity-matched analysis. A time-dependent Cox survival regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of pVTE prophylaxis on survival during hospital stay. The association between VTE prophylaxis and computed tomography (CT) progression was assessed with a logistic regression analysis. Overall, 56 patients (2%) had a VTE during hospital stay. The majority, 1279 patients (64%), received pVTE prophylaxis, with substantial between-center variation (MOR, 2.7; p < 0.001). A moderate association with improved outcome was found at center level (odds ratio [OR], 1.2 [0.7-2.1]) and patient level (multi-variate adjusted OR, 1.4 [1.1-1.7], and propensity adjusted OR, 1.5 [1.1-2.0]), with similar results in subgroup analyses. Survival was higher with the use of pVTE prophylaxis (p < 0.001). We found no clear effect on CT progression (OR, 0.9; CI [0.6-1.2]). Overall, practice policies for pVTE prophylaxis vary substantially between European centers, whereas pVTE prophylaxis may contribute to improved outcome.Trial registration number is NCT02210221 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered on August 6, 2014 (first patient enrollment on December 19, 2014). Show less
Lecky, F.E.; Otesile, O.; Marincowitz, C.; Majdan, M.; Nieboer, D.; Lingsma, H.F.; ... ; Moyer, C. 2021
Author summary Why was this study done? Traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a huge global disease burden, considered to mainly result from high-energy transfer mechanisms such as road traffic... Show moreAuthor summary Why was this study done? Traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a huge global disease burden, considered to mainly result from high-energy transfer mechanisms such as road traffic collisions, sports, falls from a height, and interpersonal violence.People injured through low-energy transfer (ground- or low-level falls) are considered less likely to sustain significant TBI, so can be given lower priority for acute specialist care within emergency medical services (triage decisions).Recent multinational studies challenge these assumptions by identifying falls as an important TBI causal mechanism-but these studies seldom describe fall height.The lack of clarity concerning the low-energy TBI disease burden hampers effective prevention and clinical management. What did the researchers do and find? We studied 21,681 patients with TBI presenting to 56 hospital emergency departments across Europe and Israel using an efficient registry methodology enabling a real-world approach.We found that the 40% of patients with TBI who were injured through low-energy falls were significantly older, more likely to be female, and more likely to be taking pre-injury drugs that prevent blood clotting than patients with TBI sustained through high-energy transfer.Despite similar rates of significant injury on the CT brain scan and of dying in hospital, patients injured through low-energy falls were half as likely to receive critical care or emergency intervention compared to those injured by high-energy transfer. What do these findings mean? Low-energy falls contribute to a significant portion of the TBI disease burden, which will increase as the global population ages.In older people, the assumption that energy transfer predicts brain injury severity and threat to life appears to lack validity.Factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people. The appropriateness of providing less intensive acute hospital care after low-energy TBI requires further study.Reduction of TBI disease burden requires specific prevention and therapy initiatives targeted at low-energy TBI.BackgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global public health burden, where those injured by high-energy transfer (e.g., road traffic collisions) are assumed to have more severe injury and are prioritised by emergency medical service trauma triage tools. However recent studies suggest an increasing TBI disease burden in older people injured through low-energy falls. We aimed to assess the prevalence of low-energy falls among patients presenting to hospital with TBI, and to compare their characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes to TBI caused by high-energy trauma. Methods and findingsWe conducted a comparative cohort study utilising the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) Registry, which recorded patient demographics, injury, care pathway, and acute care outcome data in 56 acute trauma receiving hospitals across 18 countries (17 countries in Europe and Israel). Patients presenting with TBI and indications for computed tomography (CT) brain scan between 2014 to 2018 were purposively sampled. The main study outcomes were (i) the prevalence of low-energy falls causing TBI within the overall cohort and (ii) comparisons of TBI patients injured by low-energy falls to TBI patients injured by high-energy transfer-in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, care pathways, and hospital mortality. In total, 22,782 eligible patients were enrolled, and study outcomes were analysed for 21,681 TBI patients with known injury mechanism; 40% (95% CI 39% to 41%) (8,622/21,681) of patients with TBI were injured by low-energy falls. Compared to 13,059 patients injured by high-energy transfer (HE cohort), the those injured through low-energy falls (LE cohort) were older (LE cohort, median 74 [IQR 56 to 84] years, versus HE cohort, median 42 [IQR 25 to 60] years; p < 0.001), more often female (LE cohort, 50% [95% CI 48% to 51%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001), more frequently taking pre-injury anticoagulants or/and platelet aggregation inhibitors (LE cohort, 44% [95% CI 42% to 45%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 11% to 14%]; p < 0.001), and less often presenting with moderately or severely impaired conscious level (LE cohort, 7.8% [95% CI 5.6% to 9.8%], versus HE cohort, 10% [95% CI 8.7% to 12%]; p < 0.001), but had similar in-hospital mortality (LE cohort, 6.3% [95% CI 4.2% to 8.3%], versus HE cohort, 7.0% [95% CI 5.3% to 8.6%]; p = 0.83). The CT brain scan traumatic abnormality rate was 3% lower in the LE cohort (LE cohort, 29% [95% CI 27% to 31%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001); individuals in the LE cohort were 50% less likely to receive critical care (LE cohort, 12% [95% CI 9.5% to 13%], versus HE cohort, 24% [95% CI 23% to 26%]; p < 0.001) or emergency interventions (LE cohort, 7.5% [95% CI 5.4% to 9.5%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 12% to 15%]; p < 0.001) than patients injured by high-energy transfer. The purposive sampling strategy and censorship of patient outcomes beyond hospital discharge are the main study limitations. ConclusionsWe observed that patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls are an important component of the TBI disease burden and a distinct demographic cohort; further, our findings suggest that energy transfer may not predict intracranial injury or acute care mortality in patients with TBI presenting to hospital. This suggests that factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people.A specific focus to improve prevention and care for patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls is required. Show less
Background Fluid therapy-the administration of fluids to maintain adequate organ tissue perfusion and oxygenation-is essential in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with traumatic... Show moreBackground Fluid therapy-the administration of fluids to maintain adequate organ tissue perfusion and oxygenation-is essential in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with traumatic brain injury. We aimed to quantify the variability in fluid management policies in patients with traumatic brain injury and to study the effect of this variability on patients' outcomes.Methods We did a prospective, multicentre, comparative effectiveness study of two observational cohorts: CENTER-TBI in Europe and OzENTER-TBI in Australia. Patients from 55 hospitals in 18 countries, aged 16 years or older with traumatic brain injury requiring a head CT, and admitted to the ICU were included in this analysis. We extracted data on demographics, injury, and clinical and treatment characteristics, and calculated the mean daily fluid balance (difference between fluid input and loss) and mean daily fluid input during ICU stay per patient. We analysed the association of fluid balance and input with ICU mortality and functional outcome at 6 months, measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE). Patient-level analyses relied on adjustment for key characteristics per patient, whereas centre-level analyses used the centre as the instrumental variable.Findings 2125 patients enrolled in CENTER-TBI and OzENTER-TBI between Dec 19, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017, were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The median age was 50 years (IQR 31 to 66) and 1566 (74%) of patients were male. The median of the mean daily fluid input ranged from 1middot48 L (IQR 1middot12 to 2middot09) to 4middot23 L (3middot78 to 4middot94) across centres. The median of the mean daily fluid balance ranged from -0middot85 L (IQR -1middot51 to -0middot49) to 1middot13 L (0middot99 to 1middot37) across centres. In patient-level analyses, a mean positive daily fluid balance was associated with higher ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1middot10 [95% CI 1middot07 to 1middot12] per 0middot1 L increase) and worse functional outcome (1middot04 [1middot02 to 1middot05] per 0middot1 L increase); higher mean daily fluid input was also associated with higher ICU mortality (1middot05 [1middot03 to 1middot06] per 0middot1 L increase) and worse functional outcome (1middot04 [1middot03 to 1middot04] per 1-point decrease of the GOSE per 0middot1 L increase). Centre-level analyses showed similar associations of higher fluid balance with ICU mortality (OR 1middot17 [95% CI 1middot05 to 1middot29]) and worse functional outcome (1middot07 [1middot02 to 1middot13]), but higher fluid input was not associated with ICU mortality (OR 0middot95 [0middot90 to 1middot00]) or worse functional outcome (1middot01 [0middot98 to 1middot03]).Interpretation In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury, there is significant variability in fluid management, with more positive fluid balances being associated with worse outcomes. These results, when added to previous evidence, suggest that aiming for neutral fluid balances, indicating a state of normovolaemia, contributes to improved outcome. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
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.... Show moreHealth-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. Show less
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in... Show morePurpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) 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. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Background Prehospital care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important to prevent secondary brain injury. We aim to compare prehospital care systems within Europe and investigate the association... Show moreBackground Prehospital care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important to prevent secondary brain injury. We aim to compare prehospital care systems within Europe and investigate the association of system characteristics with the stability of patients at hospital arrival. Methods We studied TBI patients who were transported to CENTER-TBI centers, a pan-European, prospective TBI cohort study, by emergency medical services between 2014 and 2017. The association of demographic factors, injury severity, situational factors, and interventions associated with on-scene time was assessed using linear regression. We used mixed effects models to investigate the case mix adjusted variation between countries in prehospital times and interventions. The case mix adjusted impact of on-scene time and interventions on hypoxia (oxygen saturation <90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100mmHg) at hospital arrival was analyzed with logistic regression. Results Among 3878 patients, the greatest driver of longer on-scene time was intubation (+8.3 min, 95% CI: 5.6-11.1). Secondary referral was associated with shorter on-scene time (-5.0 min 95% CI: -6.2- -3.8). Between countries, there was a large variation in response (range: 12-25 min), on-scene (range: 16-36 min) and travel time (range: 15-32 min) and in prehospital interventions. These variations were not explained by patient factors such as conscious level or severity of injury (expected OR between countries: 1.8 for intubation, 1.8 for IV fluids, 2.0 for helicopter). On-scene time was not associated with the regional EMS policy (p= 0.58). Hypotension and/or hypoxia were seen in 180 (6%) and 97 (3%) patients in the overall cohort and in 13% and 7% of patients with severe TBI (GCS <8). The largest association with secondary insults at hospital arrival was with major extracranial injury: the OR was 3.6 (95% CI: 2.6-5.0) for hypotension and 4.4 (95% CI: 2.9-6.7) for hypoxia. Discussion Hypoxia and hypotension continue to occur in patients who suffer a TBI, and remain relatively common in severe TBI. Substantial variation in prehospital care exists for patients after TBI in Europe, which is only partially explained by patient factors. 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
Huijben, J.A.; Wiegers, E.J.A.; Ercole, A.; Keizer, N.F. de; Maas, A.I.R.; Steyerberg, E.W.; ... ; Jagt, M. van der 2020
Background The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units... Show moreBackground The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe and to study its potential for quality measurement and improvement. Methods Our analysis was based on 2006 adult patients admitted to 54 ICUs between 2014 and 2018, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI study. Indicator scores were calculated as percentage adherence for structure and process indicators and as event rates or median scores for outcome indicators. Feasibility was quantified by the completeness of the variables. Discriminability was determined by the between-centre variation, estimated with a random effect regression model adjusted for case-mix severity and quantified by the median odds ratio (MOR). Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was determined by the median number of events per centre, using a cut-off of 10. Results A total of 26/42 indicators could be calculated from the CENTER-TBI database. Most quality indicators proved feasible to obtain with more than 70% completeness. Sub-optimal adherence was found for most quality indicators, ranging from 26 to 93% and 20 to 99% for structure and process indicators. Significant (p < 0.001) between-centre variation was found in seven process and five outcome indicators with MORs ranging from 1.51 to 4.14. Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was generally high; five out of seven had less than 10 events per centre. Conclusions Overall, nine structures, five processes, but none of the outcome indicators showed potential for quality improvement purposes for TBI patients in the ICU. Future research should focus on implementation efforts and continuous reevaluation of quality indicators. 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
Background The burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a large public health and societal problem, but the characteristics of patients and their care pathways in Europe are poorly understood.... Show moreBackground The burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a large public health and societal problem, but the characteristics of patients and their care pathways in Europe are poorly understood. We aimed to characterise patient case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes of TBI.Methods CENTER-TBI is a Europe-based, observational cohort study, consisting of a core study and a registry. Inclusion criteria for the core study were a clinical diagnosis of TBI, presentation fewer than 24 h after injury, and an indication for CT. Patients were differentiated by care pathway and assigned to the emergency room (ER) stratum (patients who were discharged from an emergency room), admission stratum (patients who were admitted to a hospital ward), or intensive care unit (ICU) stratum (patients who were admitted to the ICU). Neuroimages and biospecimens were stored in repositories and outcome was assessed at 6 months after injury. We used the IMPACT core model for estimating the expected mortality and proportion with unfavourable Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) outcomes in patients with moderate or severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score <= 12). The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02210221, and with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).Findings Data from 4509 patients from 18 countries, collected between Dec 9,2014, and Dec 17,2017, were analysed in the core study and from 22782 patients in the registry. In the core study, 848 (19%) patients were in the ER stratum, 1523 (34%) in the admission stratum, and 2138 (47%) in the ICU stratum. In the ICU stratum, 720 (36%) patients had mild TBI (GCS score 13-15). Compared with the core cohort, the registry had a higher proportion of patients in the ER (9839 [43%]) and admission (8571138%1) strata, with more than 95% of patients classified as having mild TBI. Patients in the core study were older than those in previous studies (median age 50 years [IQR 30-66], 1254 128%1 aged >65 years), 462 (11%) had serious comorbidities, 772 (18%) were taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication, and alcohol was contributory in 1054 (25%) TBIs. MRI and blood biomarker measurement enhanced characterisation of injury severity and type. Substantial inter-country differences existed in care pathways and practice. Incomplete recovery at 6 months (GOSE <8) was found in 207 (30%) patients in the ER stratum, 665 (53%) in the admission stratum, and 1547 (84%) in the ICU stratum. Among patients with moderate-to-severe TBI in the ICU stratum, 623 (55%) patients had unfavourable outcome at 6 months (GOSE <5), similar to the proportion predicted by the IMPACT prognostic model (observed to expected ratio 1.06 [95% CI 0.97-1-14]), but mortality was lower than expected (0.70 [0.62-0.76]).Interpretation Patients with TBI who presented to European centres in the core study were older than were those in previous observational studies and often had comorbidities. Overall, most patients presented with mild TBI. The incomplete recovery of many patients should motivate precision medicine research and the identification of best practices to improve these outcomes. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
