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
Wijk, R.P.J. van; Dijck, J.T.J.M. van; Timmers, M.; Veen, E. van; Citerio, G.; Lingsma, H.F.; ... ; CENTER-TB1 Investigators 2020
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
