Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the Neurotrauma Research Panel Delphi Survey

High Priority Traumatic Brain Injury Science: Analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan

INTRODUCTION

The National Trauma Research Action Plan convened 11 topic area panels to complete consensus-driven Delphi surveys to identify high priority trauma research questions. The Neurotrauma Panel identified questions relating to interventional and comparative effectiveness trials in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) critical care as highest priority. This qualitative secondary analysis aims to translate results across several Delphi panels into potential studies in sTBI critical care.

METHODS

High priority consensus research questions related to sTBI in the critical phase of care (ranked >6.5 on a 1-9 Likert scale) were screened from the Neurotrauma, Critical Care, Geriatric, and Long-Term Outcomes Panels results. Using grounded theory, two reviewers inductively open-coded questions independently and then refined them for consensus. A similar approach was used to recategorize questions into codes. Each code was then characterized into research project(s) with an aim, design, exposure(s), and outcome(s).

RESULTS

Among 376 high-priority questions reaching consensus, 55 related to sTBI critical care. Twelve projects emerged across eight consensus thematic codes: biomarkers (1 project, average priority score/range 6.92), imaging (1, 6.84), prognostication (1, 6.77), novel neuromonitoring (3, 6.61-6.77), intracranial pressure/cerebral perfusion pressure (2, 6.67-6.76), coagulopathy (2, 6.66-6.74), early rehabilitation (1, 6.67), and pharmacologic intervention (1, 6.66).

CONCLUSIONS

This National Trauma Research Action Plan secondary analysis identified several high-priority research projects in sTBI critical care. While some questions are being addressed in ongoing trials, investigators and funding agencies should consider using these consensus-driven Delphi panel results and subsequent analyses to prioritize future research proposals.

Association of timing and agent for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with severe traumatic brain injury on venous thromboembolism events, mortality, neurosurgical intervention, and discharge disposition

BACKGROUND

Trauma patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTEs). The decision of when to initiate VTE chemoprophylaxis (VTEP) and with what agent remains controversial in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHODS

This comparative effectiveness study evaluated the impact of timing and agent for VTEP on outcomes for patients with severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Scale head score of 3, 4, or 5). Data were collected at 35 Level 1 and 2 trauma centers from January 1, 2017, to June 1, 2022. Patients were placed into analysis cohorts: no VTEP, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) ≤48 hours, LMWH >48 hours, heparin ≤48 hours, and heparin >48 hours. Propensity score matching accounting for patient factors and injury characteristics was used with logistic regression modeling to evaluate in-hospital mortality, VTEs, and discharge disposition. Neurosurgical intervention after initiation of VTEP was used to evaluate extension of intracranial hemorrhage.

RESULTS

Of 12,879 patients, 32% had no VTEP, 36% had LMWH, and 32% had heparin. Overall mortality was 8.3% and lowest among patients receiving LMWH ≤48 hours (4.1%). Venous thromboembolism event rates were lower with use of LMWH (1.6% vs. 4.5%; odds ratio, 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-6.34; p = 0.005) without increasing mortality or neurosurgical interventions. Venous thromboembolism event rates were lower with early prophylaxis (2.0% vs. 3.5%; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.71; p = 0.01) without increasing mortality ( p = 1.0). Early VTEP was associated with more nonfatal intracranial operations ( p < 0.001). However, patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention after VTEP initiation had no difference in rates of mortality, withdrawal of care, or unfavorable discharge disposition ( p = 0.7, p = 0.1, p = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe TBI, LMWH usage was associated with lower VTE incidence without increasing mortality or neurosurgical interventions. Initiation of VTEP ≤48 hours decreased VTE incidence and increased nonfatal neurosurgical interventions without affecting mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin is the preferred VTEP agent for severe TBI, and initiation ≤48 hours should be considered in relation to these risks and benefits.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

An executive summary of the National Trauma Research Action Plan

ABSTRACT

The National Trauma Research Action Plan project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research, the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients.

Research priorities in venous thromboembolism after trauma: Secondary analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality during recovery from injury and can result in significant health care costs. Despite advances in the past several decades in our approach to VTE prophylaxis after injury, opportunities exist to improve the delivery and implementation of optimal VTE prophylaxis. Here, we aim to identify consensus research questions related to VTE across all National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) Delphi expert panels to further guide the research agenda aimed at preventing VTE after injury.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of consensus-based research priorities that were collected using a Delphi methodology by 11 unique NTRAP panels that were charged with unique topic areas across the spectrum of injury care. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "VTE," "venous thromboembo," and "DVT" and then grouped into relevant topic areas.

RESULTS

There were 86 VTE-related research questions identified across 9 NTRAP panels. Eighty-five questions reached consensus with 24 rated high priority; 60, medium priority; and 1, low priority. Questions related to the timing of VTE prophylaxis (n = 17) were most common, followed by questions related to risk factors for the development of VTE (n = 16), the effects of tranexamic acid on VTE (n = 11), the approach to dosing of pharmacologic prophylaxis (n = 8), and the pharmacologic prophylactic medication choice for optimal VTE prophylaxis (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

National Trauma Research Action Plan panelists identified 85 consensus-based research questions that should drive dedicated extramural research funding opportunities to support quality studies aimed at optimizing VTE prophylaxis after injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics.

METHODS

Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the postadmission critical care research gap Delphi survey

INTRODUCTION

The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan. In response, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care from prehospital care to rehabilitation as part of an overall strategy to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury. The Postadmission Critical Care Research panel was 1 of 11 panels constituted to develop this research agenda.

METHODS

We recruited interdisciplinary experts in surgical critical care and recruited them to identify current gaps in clinical critical care research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. The first of four survey rounds asked participants to generate key research questions. On subsequent rounds, we asked survey participants to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category.

RESULTS

Twenty-five subject matter experts generated 595 questions. By Round 3, 249 questions reached ≥60% consensus. Of these, 22 questions were high, 185 were medium, and 42 were low priority. The clinical states of hypovolemic shock and delirium were most represented in the high-priority questions. Traumatic brain injury was the only specific injury pattern with a high-priority question.

CONCLUSION

The National Trauma Research Action Plan critical care research panel identified 22 high-priority research questions, which, if answered, would reduce preventable death and disability after injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

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.