High quality evidence shows decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) may improve survival but increase the number of severely disabled survivors. Contemporary... Show moreHigh quality evidence shows decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) may improve survival but increase the number of severely disabled survivors. Contemporary international practice is unknown. We sought to describe international use of DC, and the alignment with evidence and clinical practice guidelines, by analyzing the harmonized Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) and Australia-Europe NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (OzENTER-TBI) core study datasets, which include patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia between 2015 and 2017. Outcomes of interest were treatment with DC relative to clinical trial evidence and the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines. Of 2336 people admitted to ICUs following TBI, DC was performed in 320 (13.7%): in 64/1422 (4.5%) patients with diffuse TBI and 195/640 (30.5%) patients with traumatic mass lesions. Secondary DC (for treatment of intracranial hypertension) was used infrequently in patients who met enrollment criteria of the two randomized clinical trials informing the guidelines-specifically, in 11/124 (8.9%) of those matching Decompressive Craniectomy in Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury trial (DECRA) enrollment, and in 30/224 (13.4%) of those matching Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp). Of patients who underwent DC, 258/320 (80.6%) were ineligible for either trial: 149/320 (46.6%) underwent primary DC, 62/320 (19.4%) were outside the trials' age criteria, and 126/320 (39.4%) did not develop intracranial hypertension refractory to non-operative therapies prior to DC. Secondary DC was used infrequently in patients in whom it had been shown to increase survival with severe disability, indicating alignment between contemporaneous evidence and practice. However, most patients who underwent DC were ineligible for the key trials; whether they benefited from DC remains unknown. Show less
Objective: The aim of this manuscript is to compare characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) between Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and... Show moreObjective: The aim of this manuscript is to compare characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) between Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe. Methods: We enrolled patients with severe TBI in Victoria, Australia (OzENTER-TBI), in the UK and Europe (CENTER-TBI) from 2015 to 2017. Main outcome measures were mortality and unfavourable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended < 5) 6 months after injury. Expected outcomes were compared according to the IMPACT-CT prognostic model, with observed to expected (O/E) ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 107 patients from Australia, 171 from UK, and 596 from Europe. Compared to the UK and Europe, patients in Australia were younger (median 32 vs 44 vs 44 years), a larger proportion had secondary brain insults including hypotension (30% vs 17% vs 21%) and a larger proportion received ICP monitoring (75% vs 74% vs 58%). Hospital length of stay was shorter in Australia than in the UK (median: 17 vs 23 vs 16 days), and a higher proportion of patients were discharged to a rehabilitation unit in Australia than in the UK and Europe (64% vs 26% vs 28%). Mortality overall was lower than expected (27% vs 35%, O/E ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64 - 0.87]. O/E ratios were comparable between regions for mortality in Australia 0.86 [95% CI: 0.49-1.23] vs UK 0.82 [0.51-1.15] vs Europe 0.76 [0.60-0.87]). Unfavourable outcome rates overall were in line with historic expectations (O/E ratio 1.32 [0.96-1.68] vs 1.13 [0.841.42] vs 0.96 [0.85-1.09]). Conclusions: There are major differences in case-mix between Australia, UK, and Europe; Australian patients are younger and have a higher rate of secondary brain insults. Despite some differences in management and discharge policies, mortality was less than expected overall, and did not differ between regions. Functional outcomes were similar between regions, but worse than expected, emphasizing the need to improve treatment for patients with severe TBI. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ) 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
