Association of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Neurosurgical Intervention for Traumatic Brain Injury With Thromboembolic Complications, Repeated Neurosurgery, and Mortality

National Analysis of Outcomes for Adult Trauma Patients With Isolated Severe Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury Following Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

We aim to evaluate the association of early versus late venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on in-hospital mortality among patients with severe blunt isolated traumatic brain injuries.

METHODS

Data from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File for 2017-2021 were analyzed. The target population included adult trauma patients with severe isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI). VTE prophylaxis types (low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin) and their administration timing were analyzed in relation to in-hospital complications and mortality.

RESULTS

The study comprised 3609 patients, predominantly Caucasian males, with an average age of 48.5 y. Early VTE prophylaxis recipients were younger (P < 0.01) and more likely to receive unfractionated heparin (P < 0.01). VTE prophylaxis later than 24 h was associated with a higher average injury severity score and longer intensive care unit stays (P < 0.01). Logistic regression revealed that VTE prophylaxis later than 24 h was associated with significant reduction of in-hospital mortality by 38% (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.94, P = 0.02). Additionally, low molecular weight heparin use was associated with decreased mortality odds by 30% (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.89, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

VTE prophylaxis later than 24 h is associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with severe isolated blunt TBI, as opposed to VTE prophylaxis within 24 h. These findings suggest the need for timely and appropriate VTE prophylaxis in TBI care, highlighting the critical need for a comprehensive assessment and further research concerning the safety and effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis in these patient populations.

Utility of Routine Surveillance Head Computed Tomography After Receiving Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

Patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism and may require anticoagulation. We evaluated the utility of surveillance computed tomography (CT) in patients with tICH who required therapeutic anticoagulation.

METHODS

This single institution, retrospective study included adult patients with tICH who required anticoagulation within 4 weeks and had a surveillance head CT within 24 hours of reaching therapeutic anticoagulation levels. The primary outcome was hematoma expansion (HE) detected by the surveillance CT. Secondary outcomes included 1) changes in management in patients with HE on the surveillance head CT, 2) HE in the absence of clinical changes, and 3) mortality due to HE. We also compared mortality between patients who did and did not have a surveillance CT.

RESULTS

Of 175 patients, 5 (2.9%) were found to have HE. Most (n = 4, 80%) had changes in management including anticoagulation discontinuation (n = 4), reversal (n = 1), and operative management (n = 1). Two patients developed symptoms or exam changes prior to the head CT. Of the 3 patients (1.7%) without preceding exam changes, each had only very minor HE and did not require operative management. No patient experienced mortality directly attributed to HE. There was no difference in mortality between patients who did and those who did not have a surveillance scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that most patients with tICH who are started on anticoagulation could be followed clinically, and providers may reserve CT imaging for patients with changes in exam/symptoms or those who have a poor clinical examination to follow.

Early venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis in traumatic brain injury requiring neurosurgical intervention: Safe and effective

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury patients who require neurosurgical intervention are at the highest risk of worsening intracranial hemorrhage. This subgroup of patients has frequently been excluded from prior research regarding the timing of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of early venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injuries requiring neurosurgical interventions.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective review (2016-2020) of traumatic brain injury patients requiring neurosurgical intervention admitted to a level I trauma center. Interventions included intracranial pressure monitoring, subdural drain, external ventricular drain, craniotomy, and craniectomy. Exclusion criteria included neurosurgical intervention after chemoprophylaxis initiation, death within 5 days of admission, and absence of chemoprophylaxis. The total population was stratified into Early (≤72 hours of intervention) versus Late (>72 hours after intervention) chemoprophylaxis initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 351 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 204 (58%) had early chemoprophylaxis initiation. Overall, there were no significant differences in baseline and admission characteristics between cohorts. The Early chemoprophylaxis cohort had a statistically significant lower venous thromboembolism rate (5% vs 13%, P < .001) with no increased risk of worsening intracranial hemorrhage (10% vs 13%, P = .44) or neurosurgical reintervention (8% vs 10%, P = .7). On subgroup analysis, a total of 169 patients required either a craniotomy or a craniectomy before chemoprophylaxis. The Early chemoprophylaxis cohort had statistically significant lower venous thromboembolism rates (2% vs 11%, P < .001) with no increase in intracranial hemorrhage (8% vs 11%, P = .6) or repeat neurosurgical intervention (8% vs 10%, P = .77).

CONCLUSION

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation within 72 hours of neurosurgical intervention is safe and effective. Further prospective research is warranted to validate the results of this study.

Propensity weighted analysis of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis agents in isolated severe traumatic brain injury: An EAST sponsored multicenter study

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), clinicians must balance preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of intracranial hemorrhagic expansion (ICHE). We hypothesized that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) would not increase risk of ICHE or VTE as compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in patients with severe TBI.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 18 years of age with isolated severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3), admitted to 24 level I and II trauma centers between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 and who received subcutaneous UH and LMWH injections for chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) were included. Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE after VTEP initiation. Secondary outcomes were mortality and neurosurgical interventions. Entropy balancing (EBAL) weighted competing risk or logistic regression models were estimated for all outcomes with chemical VTEP agent as the predictor of interest.

RESULTS

984 patients received chemical VTEP, 482 UH and 502 LMWH. Patients on LMWH more often had pre-existing conditions such as liver disease (UH vs LMWH 1.7 % vs. 4.4 %, p = 0.01), and coagulopathy (UH vs LMWH 0.4 % vs. 4.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no differences in VTE or ICHE after VTEP initiation. There were no differences in neurosurgical interventions performed. There were a total of 29 VTE events (3 %) in the cohort who received VTEP. A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect for facility demonstrated no statistically significant differences in time to VTE across the two agents (p = 0.44). The LMWH group had a 43 % lower risk of overall ICHE compared to the UH group (HR = 0.57: 95 % CI = 0.32-1.03, p = 0.062), however was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In this multi-center analysis, patients who received LMWH had a decreased risk of ICHE, with no differences in VTE, ICHE after VTEP initiation and neurosurgical interventions compared to those who received UH. There were no safety concerns when using LMWH compared to UH.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Care Management.

Contemporary management of major haemorrhage in critical care

Haemorrhagic shock is frequent in critical care settings and responsible for a high mortality rate due to multiple organ dysfunction and coagulopathy. The management of critically ill patients with bleeding and shock is complex, and treatment of these patients must be rapid and definitive. The administration of large volumes of blood components leads to major physiological alterations which must be mitigated during and after bleeding. Early recognition of bleeding and coagulopathy, understanding the underlying pathophysiology related to specific disease states, and the development of individualised management protocols are important for optimal outcomes. This review describes the contemporary understanding of the pathophysiology of various types of coagulopathic bleeding; the diagnosis and management of critically ill bleeding patients, including major haemorrhage protocols and post-transfusion management; and finally highlights recent areas of opportunity to better understand optimal management strategies for managing bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU).

When is it safe to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after blunt solid organ injury? A prospective American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal time to initiate venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) after blunt solid organ injury remains controversial, as VTE mitigation must be balanced against bleeding promulgation. Evidence from primarily small, retrospective, single-center work suggests that VTEp ≤48 hours is safe and effective. This study was undertaken to validate this clinical practice.

METHODS

Blunt trauma patients presenting to 19 participating trauma centers in North America were screened over a 1-year study period beginning between August 1 and October 1, 2021. Inclusions were age older than 15 years; ≥1 liver, spleen, or kidney injury; and initial nonoperative management. Exclusions were transfers, emergency department death, pregnancy, and concomitant bleeding disorder/anticoagulation/antiplatelet medication. A priori power calculation stipulated the need for 1,158 patients. Time of VTEp initiation defined study groups: Early (≤48 hours of admission) versus Late (>48 hours). Bivariate and multivariable analyses compared outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 1,173 patients satisfied the study criteria with 571 liver (49%), 557 spleen (47%), and 277 kidney injuries (24%). The median patient age was 34 years (interquartile range, 25-49 years), and 67% (n = 780) were male. The median Injury Severity Score was 22 (interquartile range, 14-29) with Abbreviated Injury Scale Abdomen score of 3 (interquartile range, 2-3), and the median American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade of solid organ injury was 2 (interquartile range, 2-3). Early VTEp patients (n = 838 [74%]) had significantly lower rates of VTE (n = 28 [3%] vs. n = 21 [7%], p = 0.008), comparable rates of nonoperative management failure (n = 21 [3%] vs. n = 12 [4%], p = 0.228), and lower rates of post-VTEp blood transfusion (n = 145 [17%] vs. n = 71 [23%], p = 0.024) when compared with Late VTEp patients (n = 301 [26%]). Late VTEp was independently associated with VTE (odd ratio, 2.251; p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of VTEp was associated with significantly reduced rates of VTE with no increase in bleeding complications. Venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis initiation ≤48 hours is therefore safe and effective and should be the standard of care for patients with blunt solid organ injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic and Care Management; Level III.

Racial Disparities in Administration of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Severe Traumatic Injuries

BACKGROUND

Race is associated with differences in quality of care process measures and incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma patients. We aimed to investigate if racial disparities exist in the administration of VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients.

METHODS

We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Project database from 2017 to 2019. Patients ages ≥16 years old with ISS ≥15 were included. Patients with no signs of life on arrival, any AIS ≥6, hospital length of stay <1 day, anticoagulant use before admission, or without recorded race were excluded. Patients were grouped by race: white, black, Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The association between VTE prophylaxis administration and race was determined using a Poisson regression model with robust standard errors to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 285,341 patients were included. Black patients had the highest rates of VTE prophylaxis exposure (73.8%), shortest time to administration (1.6 days), and highest use of low molecular weight heparin (56%). Black patients also had the highest incidence of deep vein thrombosis (2.8%) and pulmonary embolism (1.4%). Black patients were 4% more likely to receive VTE prophylaxis than white patients [adj. IRR (95% CI): 1.04 (1.03-1.05), P < .001]. American Indians were 8% less likely to receive VTE prophylaxis [adj. IRR (95% CI): .92 (.88-.97), P < .001] than white patients. No differences between white and Asian or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients existed.

DISCUSSION

While black patients had the highest incidence of DVT and PE, they had higher administration rates and earlier initiation of VTE prophylaxis. Further work can elucidate modifiable causes of these differences.

Early venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with trauma intracranial hemorrhage: Analysis of the prospective multicenter Consortium of Leaders in Traumatic Thromboembolism study

BACKGROUND

The optimal time to initiate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) for patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is controversial and must balance the risks of VTE with potential progression of ICH. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early VTEp initiation after traumatic ICH.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the prospective multicenter Consortium of Leaders in the Study of Thromboembolism study. Patients with head Abbreviated Injury Scale score of > 2 and with immediate VTEp held because of ICH were included. Patients were divided into VTEp ≤ or >48 hours and compared. Outcome variables included overall VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, progression of intracranial hemorrhage (pICH), or other bleeding events. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed.

RESULTS

There were 881 patients in total; 378 (43%) started VTEp ≤48 hours (early). Patients starting VTEp >48 hours (late) had higher VTE (12.4% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.01) and DVT (11.0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.01) rates than the early group. The incidence of pulmonary embolism (2.1% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.94), pICH (1.9% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.95), or any other bleeding event (1.9% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.28) was equivalent between early and late VTEp groups. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, VTEp >48 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.86), ventilator days >3 (OR, 2.00), and risk assessment profile score of ≥5 (OR, 6.70) were independent risk factors for VTE (all p < 0.05), while VTEp with enoxaparin was associated with decreased VTE (OR, 0.54, p < 0.05). Importantly, VTEp ≤48 hours was not associated with pICH (OR, 0.75) or risk of other bleeding events (OR, 1.28) (both p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of VTEp (≤48 hours) for patients with ICH was associated with decreased VTE/DVT rates without increased risk of pICH or other significant bleeding events. Enoxaparin is superior to unfractionated heparin as VTE prophylaxis in patients with severe TBI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Compliance in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

INTRODUCTION

Early initiation of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) decreases VTE risk in trauma patients in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU). The frequency and variation of VTEp interruption by different surgical subspecialties in the SICU is incompletely described in the literature. The objective of this study was to examine VTEp compliance in the SICU in terms of uninterrupted VTEp following initiation, both by surgical service and time of year, to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

This single-center quality improvement (QI) study examined all SICU patients, which are almost exclusively trauma patients, at our institution (1/2021-04/2022). Exclusions were therapeutic anticoagulation. Type of VTEp, calendar month of SICU stay, perceived indications for interruption, and primary service were collected.

RESULTS

Of 5 434 patient days (PD), VTEp was not administered in 1879 (35%). Common reasons for VTEp interruption were ongoing bleeding (n = 964 PD, 51%) and periprocedural status (n = 651 PD, 35%). Periprocedural interruption was highest in July. Acute Care Surgery (ACS) (n = 208 PD, 32%) and Orthopedics (n = 188 PD, 29%) interrupted VTEp most often. ACS most commonly withheld VTEp for second look laparotomies while Orthopedics withheld VTEp for intramedullary nailing or external fixator application.

CONCLUSION

Missed VTEp doses occurred most frequently at the beginning of the residency year, with a high percentage held for periprocedural status. Because the necessity of periprocedural VTEp holds is unclear, the appropriateness of these holds and any impact on VTE rates will be assessed as the next steps. In the interim, our findings provide targets for multidisciplinary QI endeavors.

Low-molecular-weight heparin is superior to unfractionated heparin in lowering the risk of venous thromboembolism after traumatic lower extremity amputation

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing lower extremity amputation after trauma are at high risk of venous thromboembolism. Practice variations persist regarding the optimal pharmacologic agent for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in this patient population. We aimed to compare the efficacy of unfractionated heparin versus low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing venous thromboembolism.

METHODS

Using the 2013 to 2019 American College of Surgeons Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program database, all trauma patients (≥18) who underwent lower limb amputation and received venous thromboembolism thromboprophylaxis in the form of unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin were included. We excluded patients who died within 24 hours of admission or those who received no thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was the rate of venous thromboembolism. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent relationship between the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis and the risk of venous thromboembolism.

RESULTS

A total of 4,103 patients who underwent lower extremity amputation were identified. Patients were primarily young (median age 43 years) with blunt injuries (83%). The overall rate of venous thromboembolism was 8.6%. Most (77%) patients received low-molecular-weight heparin-based prophylaxis. Compared with patients without venous thromboembolism, the venous thromboembolism cohort had a greater injury severity score (19 vs 13, P < .001), had more patients undergoing above-the-knee amputation (48% vs 36%, P < .001), and less frequently received low-molecular-weight heparin (64% vs 78%, P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed that low-molecular-weight heparin was associated with a significantly lower venous thromboembolism rate than unfractionated heparin (odds ratio: 0.65 [0.51-0.83], P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was found to be superior to unfractionated heparin in lowering the risk of venous thromboembolism among traumatic amputees and should be the preferred pharmacologic agent in this patient population prone to venous thromboembolism.

Proceedings from the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma

ABSTRACT

On May 4 and 5, 2022, a meeting of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after trauma was convened by the Coalition for National Trauma Research, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, and hosted by the American College of Surgeons in Chicago, Illinois. This consensus conference gathered more than 40 in-person and 80 virtual attendees, including trauma surgeons, other physicians, thrombosis experts, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, and patient advocates. The objectives of the meeting were twofold: (1) to review and summarize the present state of the scientific evidence regarding VTE prevention strategies in injured patients and (2) to develop consensus on future priorities in VTE prevention implementation and research gaps.To achieve these objectives, the first part of the conference consisted of talks from physician leaders, researchers, clinical champions, and patient advocates to summarize the current state of knowledge of VTE pathogenesis and prevention in patients with major injury. Video recordings of all talks and accompanying slides are freely available on the conference website ( https://www.nattrauma.org/research/research-policies-templates-guidelines/vte-conference/ ). Following this curriculum, the second part of the conference consisted of a series of small-group breakout sessions on topics potentially requiring future study. Through this process, research priorities were identified, and plans of action to develop and undertake future studies were defined.The 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma answered the National Trauma Research Action Plan call to define a course for future research into preventing thromboembolism after trauma. A multidisciplinary group of clinical champions, physicians, scientists, and patients delineated clear objectives for future investigation to address important, persistent key knowledge gaps. The series of papers from the conference outlines the consensus based on the current literature and a roadmap for research to answer these unanswered questions.

Timing of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation after injury: Findings from the consensus conference to implement optimal VTE prophylaxis in trauma

ABSTRACT

Optimizing prophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) is a critical issue in the care of injured patients. Although these patients are at significant risk of developing VTE, they also present competing concerns related to exacerbation of bleeding from existing injuries. Especially after high-risk trauma, including injuries to the abdominal solid organs, brain, and spine, trauma providers must delineate the time period in which VTE prophylaxis successfully reduces VTE rates without encouraging bleeding. Although existing data are primarily retrospective in nature and further study is required, literature supports early VTE chemoprophylaxis initiation even for severely injured patients. Early initiation is most frequently defined as <48 hours from admission but varies from <24 hours to 72 hours and occasionally refers to time from initial trauma. Prior to chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation in patients at risk for bleeding, an observation period is necessary during which injuries must show themselves to be hemostatic, either clinically or radiographically. In the future, prospective examination of optimal timing of VTE prophylaxis is necessary. Further study of specific subsets of trauma patients will allow for development of effective VTE mitigation strategies based upon collective risks of VTE and hemorrhage progression.

Neurotrauma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will highlight the latest research relevant to the clinical care of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients over the last 2 years while underscoring the implications of these advances in the understanding of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of TBI.

RECENT FINDINGS

Brain tissue oxygenation monitoring can identify hypoperfusion as an adjunct to intracerebral pressure monitoring. Multiple biomarker assays are now available to help clinicians screen for mild TBI and biomarker elevations correlate with the size of intracranial injury. Beta-blocker exposure following TBI has demonstrated a survival benefit in those with TBI though the mechanism for this remains unknown. The optimal timing for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for TBI patients is still uncertain.

SUMMARY

The current characterization of TBI as mild, moderate, or severe fails to capture the complexity of the disease process and helps little with prognostication. Molecular biomarkers and invasive monitoring devices including brain tissue oxygenation and measures of cerebral autoregulation are being utilized more commonly and can help guide therapy. Extracranial complications following TBI are common and include infection, respiratory failure, coagulopathy, hypercoagulability, and paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity.

Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has the highest incidence of all common neurological disorders, and poses a substantial public health burden. TBI is increasingly documented not only as an acute condition but also as a chronic disease with long-term consequences, including an increased risk of late-onset neurodegeneration. The first Lancet Neurology Commission on TBI, published in 2017, called for a concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by TBI. Since then, funding agencies have supported research both in high-income countries (HICs) and in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In November 2020, the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of WHO, passed resolution WHA73.10 for global actions on epilepsy and other neurological disorders, and WHO launched the Decade for Action on Road Safety plan in 2021. New knowledge has been generated by large observational studies, including those conducted under the umbrella of the International Traumatic Brain Injury Research (InTBIR) initiative, established as a collaboration of funding agencies in 2011. InTBIR has also provided a huge stimulus to collaborative research in TBI and has facilitated participation of global partners. The return on investment has been high, but many needs of patients with TBI remain unaddressed. This update to the 2017 Commission presents advances and discusses persisting and new challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research.

In LMICs, the occurrence of TBI is driven by road traffic incidents, often involving vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists and pedestrians. In HICs, most TBI is caused by falls, particularly in older people (aged ≥65 years), who often have comorbidities. Risk factors such as frailty and alcohol misuse provide opportunities for targeted prevention actions. Little evidence exists to inform treatment of older patients, who have been commonly excluded from past clinical trials—consequently, appropriate evidence is urgently required. Although increasing age is associated with worse outcomes from TBI, age should not dictate limitations in therapy. However, patients injured by low-energy falls (who are mostly older people) are about 50% less likely to receive critical care or emergency interventions, compared with those injured by high-energy mechanisms, such as road traffic incidents.

Mild TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma sum score of 13–15, comprises most of the TBI cases (over 90%) presenting to hospital. Around 50% of adult patients with mild TBI presenting to hospital do not recover to pre-TBI levels of health by 6 months after their injury. Fewer than 10% of patients discharged after presenting to an emergency department for TBI in Europe currently receive follow-up. Structured follow-up after mild TBI should be considered good practice, and urgent research is needed to identify which patients with mild TBI are at risk for incomplete recovery.

The selection of patients for CT is an important triage decision in mild TBI since it allows early identification of lesions that can trigger hospital admission or life-saving surgery. Current decision making for deciding on CT is inefficient, with 90–95% of scanned patients showing no intracranial injury but being subjected to radiation risks. InTBIR studies have shown that measurement of blood-based biomarkers adds value to previously proposed clinical decision rules, holding the potential to improve efficiency while reducing radiation exposure. Increased concentrations of biomarkers in the blood of patients with a normal presentation CT scan suggest structural brain damage, which is seen on MR scanning in up to 30% of patients with mild TBI. Advanced MRI, including diffusion tensor imaging and volumetric analyses, can identify additional injuries not detectable by visual inspection of standard clinical MR images. Thus, the absence of CT abnormalities does not exclude structural damage—an observation relevant to litigation procedures, to management of mild TBI, and when CT scans are insufficient to explain the severity of the clinical condition.

Although blood-based protein biomarkers have been shown to have important roles in the evaluation of TBI, most available assays are for research use only. To date, there is only one vendor of such assays with regulatory clearance in Europe and the USA with an indication to rule out the need for CT imaging for patients with suspected TBI. Regulatory clearance is provided for a combination of biomarkers, although evidence is accumulating that a single biomarker can perform as well as a combination. Additional biomarkers and more clinical-use platforms are on the horizon, but cross-platform harmonisation of results is needed. Health-care efficiency would benefit from diversity in providers.

In the intensive care setting, automated analysis of blood pressure and intracranial pressure with calculation of derived parameters can help individualise management of TBI. Interest in the identification of subgroups of patients who might benefit more from some specific therapeutic approaches than others represents a welcome shift towards precision medicine. Comparative-effectiveness research to identify best practice has delivered on expectations for providing evidence in support of best practices, both in adult and paediatric patients with TBI.

Progress has also been made in improving outcome assessment after TBI. Key instruments have been translated into up to 20 languages and linguistically validated, and are now internationally available for clinical and research use. TBI affects multiple domains of functioning, and outcomes are affected by personal characteristics and life-course events, consistent with a multifactorial bio-psycho-socio-ecological model of TBI, as presented in the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2022 report. Multidimensional assessment is desirable and might be best based on measurement of global functional impairment. More work is required to develop and implement recommendations for multidimensional assessment. Prediction of outcome is relevant to patients and their families, and can facilitate the benchmarking of quality of care. InTBIR studies have identified new building blocks (eg, blood biomarkers and quantitative CT analysis) to refine existing prognostic models. Further improvement in prognostication could come from MRI, genetics, and the integration of dynamic changes in patient status after presentation.

Neurotrauma researchers traditionally seek translation of their research findings through publications, clinical guidelines, and industry collaborations. However, to effectively impact clinical care and outcome, interactions are also needed with research funders, regulators, and policy makers, and partnership with patient organisations. Such interactions are increasingly taking place, with exemplars including interactions with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Acquired Brain Injury in the UK, the production of the NASEM report in the USA, and interactions with the US Food and Drug Administration. More interactions should be encouraged, and future discussions with regulators should include debates around consent from patients with acute mental incapacity and data sharing. Data sharing is strongly advocated by funding agencies. From January 2023, the US National Institutes of Health will require upload of research data into public repositories, but the EU requires data controllers to safeguard data security and privacy regulation. The tension between open data-sharing and adherence to privacy regulation could be resolved by cross-dataset analyses on federated platforms, with the data remaining at their original safe location. Tools already exist for conventional statistical analyses on federated platforms, however federated machine learning requires further development. Support for further development of federated platforms, and neuroinformatics more generally, should be a priority.

This update to the 2017 Commission presents new insights and challenges across a range of topics around TBI: epidemiology and prevention (section 1 ); system of care (section 2 ); clinical management (section 3 ); characterisation of TBI (section 4 ); outcome assessment (section 5 ); prognosis (Section 6 ); and new directions for acquiring and implementing evidence (section 7 ). Table 1 summarises key messages from this Commission and proposes recommendations for the way forward to advance research and clinical management of TBI.

Initial neurocritical care of severe traumatic brain injury: New paradigms and old challenges

Background:

Early neurocritical care aims to ameliorate secondary traumatic brain injury (TBI) and improve neural salvage. Increased engagement of neurosurgeons in neurocritical care is warranted as daily briefings between the intensivist and the neurosurgeon are considered a quality indicator for TBI care. Hence, neurosurgeons should be aware of the latest evidence in the neurocritical care of severe TBI (sTBI).

Methods:

We conducted a narrative literature review of bibliographic databases (PubMed and Scopus) to examine recent research of sTBI.

Results:

This review has several take-away messages. The concept of critical neuroworsening and its possible causes is discussed. Static thresholds of intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure may not be optimal for all patients. The use of dynamic cerebrovascular reactivity indices such as the pressure reactivity index can facilitate individualized treatment decisions. The use of ICP monitoring to tailor treatment of intracranial hypertension (IHT) is not routinely feasible. Different guidelines have been formulated for different scenarios. Accordingly, we propose an integrated algorithm for ICP management in sTBI patients in different resource settings. Although hyperosmolar therapy and decompressive craniectomy are standard treatments for IHT, there is a lack high-quality evidence on how to use them. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of invasive ICP monitoring is included in the study. Addition of beta-blocker, anti-seizure, and anticoagulant medications to standardized management protocols (SMPs) should be considered with careful patient selection.

Conclusion:

Despite consolidated research efforts in the refinement of SMPs, there are still many unanswered questions and novel research opportunities for sTBI care.

Prognostic Significance of Plasma Insulin Level for Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Critical Care

BACKGROUND

Whether insulin resistance underlies deep venous thrombosis (DVT) development in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unclear. In this study, the association between plasma insulin levels and DVT was analyzed in patients with severe TBI.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of 73 patients measured insulin, glucose, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), inflammatory factors, and hematological profiles within four preset times during the first 14 days after TBI. Ultrasonic surveillance of DVT was tracked. Two-way analysis of variance was used to determine the factors that discriminated between patients with and without DVT or with and without insulin therapy. Partial correlations of insulin level with all the variables were conducted separately in patients with DVT or patients without DVT. Factors associated with DVT were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. Neurological outcomes 6 months after TBI were assessed.

RESULTS

Among patients with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 53 (± 16 years), DVT developed in 20 patients (27%) on median 10.4 days (range 4-22), with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores but similar Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and TBI severity. Patients with DVT were more likely to receive insulin therapy than patients without DVT (60% vs. 28%; P = 0.012); hence, they had higher 14-day insulin levels. However, insulin levels were comparable between patients with DVT and patients without DVT in the subgroups of patients with insulin therapy (n = 27) and patients without insulin therapy (n = 46). The platelet profile significantly discriminated between patients with and without DVT. Surprisingly, none of the coagulation profiles, blood cell counts, or inflammatory mediators differed between the two groups. Patients with insulin therapy had significantly higher insulin (P = 0.006), glucose (P < 0.001), and GLP-1 (P = 0.01) levels and were more likely to develop DVT (60% vs. 15%; P < 0.001) along with concomitant platelet depletion. Insulin levels correlated with glucose, GLP-1 levels, and platelet count exclusively in patients without DVT. Conversely, in patients with DVT, insulin correlated negatively with GLP-1 levels (P = 0.016). Age (P = 0.01) and elevated insulin levels at days 4-7 (P = 0.04) were independently associated with DVT. Patients with insulin therapy also showed worse Glasgow Outcome Scale scores (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated insulin levels in the first 14 days after TBI may indicate insulin resistance, which is associated with platelet hyperactivity, and thus increasing the risk of DVT.

Facts and Fallacy of Benchmark Performance Indicators

Efforts to improve quality in healthcare have arisen from the recognition that the quality of care delivered and resulting outcomes are highly variable. Performance benchmarking using high-quality data to compare risk-adjusted outcomes between hospitals and surgeons has been widely adopted as one means for addressing this problem. In this article we discuss the history, current state, methodologies, and potential pitfalls of benchmarking efforts to improve quality of healthcare in the United States.