| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.Methods: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.Results. The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N=24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N=7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N=49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N=41, 82%), benchmarking (N=42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N=41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N=48, 98%).Conclusions: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.
|
|
| 3. |
- Huijben, Jilske A, et al.
(författare)
-
Quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury in European intensive care units : a CENTER-TBI study.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 24:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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 (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.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, registered on August 06, 2014, with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).
|
|
| 4. |
- Mathieu, François, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Antithrombotic Agents on Radiological Lesion Progression in Acute Traumatic Brain Injury : A CENTER-TBI Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 37:19, s. 2069-2080
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- An increasing number of elderly patients are being affected by traumatic brain injury (TBI) and a significant proportion are on pre-hospital antithrombotic therapy for cardio- or cerebrovascular indications. We have quantified the impact of antiplatelet/anticoagulant (APAC) agents on radiological lesion progression in acute TBI, using a novel, semi-automated approach to volumetric lesion measurement, and explored the impact of use on clinical outcomes in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We used a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort design, matching controls to APAC users based on demographics, baseline clinical status, pre-injury comorbidities, and injury severity. Subjects were selected from a pool of patients enrolled in CENTER-TBI with computed tomography (CT) scan at admission and repeated within 7 days of injury. We calculated absolute changes in volume of intraparenchymal, extra-axial, intraventricular, and total intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) between scans, and compared volume of hemorrhagic progression, proportion of patients with significant degree of progression (>25% of initial volume), proportion with new ICH on follow-up CT, as well as clinical course and outcomes. A total of 316 patients were included (158 APAC users; 158 controls). The mean volume of progression was significantly higher in the APAC group for extra-axial (3.1 vs. 1.3 mL, p = 0.01), but not intraparenchymal (3.8 vs. 4.6 mL, p = 0.65), intraventricular (0.2 vs. 0.0 mL, p = 0.79), or total intracranial hemorrhage (ICH; 7.0 vs. 6.0 mL, p = 0.08). More patients had significant hemorrhage growth (54.1 vs. 37.0%, p = 0.003) and delayed ICH (4 of 18 vs. none; p = 0.04) in the APAC group compared with controls, but this was not associated with differences in length of stay (LOS), rates of neurosurgical intervention, mortality or Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E) score at 6 months. Pre-injury use of antithrombotic agents was associated with greater expansion of extra-axial lesions, higher rates of significant hemorrhagic progression, and higher risk of delayed traumatic ICH, but this was not associated with worse clinical course or functional outcomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Mikolić, Ana, et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic models for global functional outcome and post-concussion symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury : a collaborative european neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 40:15-16, s. 1651-1670
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- After mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), a substantial proportion of individuals do not fully recover on the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or experience persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). We aimed to develop prognostic models for the GOSE and PPCS at 6 months after mTBI and to assess the prognostic value of different categories of predictors (clinical variables; questionnaires; computed tomography [CT]; blood biomarkers). From the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study, we included participants aged 16 or older with Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) 13-15. We used ordinal logistic regression to model the relationship between predictors and the GOSE, and linear regression to model the relationship between predictors and the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) total score. First, we studied a pre-specified Core model. Next, we extended the Core model with other clinical and sociodemographic variables available at presentation (Clinical model). The Clinical model was then extended with variables assessed before discharge from hospital: early post-concussion symptoms, CT variables, biomarkers, or all three categories (extended models). In a subset of patients mostly discharged home from the emergency department, the Clinical model was extended with 2-3-week post-concussion and mental health symptoms. Predictors were selected based on Akaike's Information Criterion. Performance of ordinal models was expressed as a concordance index (C) and performance of linear models as proportion of variance explained (R2). Bootstrap validation was used to correct for optimism. We included 2376 mTBI patients with 6-month GOSE and 1605 patients with 6-month RPQ. The Core and Clinical models for GOSE showed moderate discrimination (C = 0.68 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.70 and C = 0.70[0.69 to 0.71], respectively) and injury severity was the strongest predictor. The extended models had better discriminative ability (C = 0.71[0.69 to 0.72] with early symptoms; 0.71[0.70 to 0.72] with CT variables or with blood biomarkers; 0.72[0.71 to 0.73] with all three categories). The performance of models for RPQ was modest (R2 = 4% Core; R2 = 9% Clinical), and extensions with early symptoms increased the R2 to 12%. The 2-3-week models had better performance for both outcomes in the subset of participants with these symptoms measured (C = 0.74 [0.71 to 0.78] vs. C = 0.63[0.61 to 0.67] for GOSE; R2 = 37% vs. 6% for RPQ). In conclusion, the models based on variables available before discharge have moderate performance for the prediction of GOSE and poor performance for the prediction of PPCS. Symptoms assessed at 2-3 weeks are required for better predictive ability of both outcomes. The performance of the proposed models should be examined in independent cohorts.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- van Essen, Thomas A., et al.
(författare)
-
Surgery versus conservative treatment for traumatic acute subdural haematoma : a prospective, multicentre, observational, comparative effectiveness study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet Neurology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-4422 .- 1474-4465. ; 21:7, s. 620-631
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Despite being well established, acute surgery in traumatic acute subdural haematoma is based on low-grade evidence. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of a strategy preferring acute surgical evacuation with one preferring initial conservative treatment in acute subdural haematoma.METHODS: We did a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study using data from participants enrolled in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) cohort. We included patients with no pre-existing severe neurological disorders who presented with acute subdural haematoma within 24 h of traumatic brain injury. Using an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference for acute subdural haematoma (acute surgical evacuation or initial conservative treatment), measured by the case-mix-adjusted percentage of acute surgery per centre. The primary endpoint was functional outcome at 6 months as rated with the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, which was estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR) and adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median OR (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582).FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2014 and Dec 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI, of whom 1407 (31%) presented with acute subdural haematoma and were included in our study. Acute surgical evacuation was done in 336 (24%) patients, by craniotomy in 245 (73%) of those patients and by decompressive craniectomy in 91 (27%). Delayed decompressive craniectomy or craniotomy after initial conservative treatment (n=982) occurred in 107 (11%) patients. The percentage of patients who underwent acute surgery ranged from 5·6% to 51·5% (IQR 12·3-35·9) between centres, with a two-times higher probability of receiving acute surgery for an identical patient in one centre versus another centre at random (adjusted MOR for acute surgery 1·8; p<0·0001]). Centre preference for acute surgery over initial conservative treatment was not associated with improvements in functional outcome (common OR per 23·6% [IQR increase] more acute surgery in a centre 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·09).INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that treatment for patients with acute subdural haematoma with similar characteristics differed depending on the treating centre, because of variation in the preferred approach. A treatment strategy preferring an aggressive approach of acute surgical evacuation over initial conservative treatment was not associated with better functional outcome. Therefore, in a patient with acute subdural haematoma for whom a neurosurgeon sees no clear superiority for acute surgery over conservative treatment, initial conservative treatment might be considered.FUNDING: The Hersenstichting Nederland (also known as the Dutch Brain Foundation), the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme, the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), OneMind (USA), Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA), and NeuroTrauma Sciences (USA).
|
|
| 8. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring : a CENTER-TBI study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Acta Neurochirurgica. - : Springer. - 0001-6268 .- 0942-0940. ; 164:7, s. 1693-1705
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: 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.
|
|
| 9. |
- Volovici, Victor, et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in Guideline Implementation and Adherence Regarding Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment : A CENTER-TBI Survey Study in Europe
- 2019
-
Ingår i: World Neurosurgery. - : Elsevier. - 1878-8750 .- 1878-8769. ; 125, s. e515-e520
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Guidelines may reduce practice variation and optimize patient care. We aimed to study differences in guideline use in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and analyze reasons for guideline non-adherence.METHODS: As part of a prospective, observational, multicenter European cohort study, participants from 68 centers in 20 countries were asked to complete 72-item questionnaires regarding their management of severe TBI. Six questions with multiple sub-questions focused on guideline use and implementation.RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 65 centers. Of these, 49 (75%) reported use of the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the medical management of TBI or related institutional protocols, 11 (17%) used no guidelines, and 5 used other guidelines (8%). Of 54 centers reporting use of any guidelines, 41 (75%) relied on written guidelines. Four centers of the 54 (7%) reported no formal implementation efforts. Structural attention to the guidelines during daily clinical rounds was reported by 21 centers (38%). The most often reported reasons for non-adherence were "every patient is unique" and the presence of extracranial injuries, both for centers that did and did not report the use of guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the use and implementation of guidelines in neurotrauma centers in Europe. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence underlying guidelines and to overcome implementation barriers.
|
|
| 10. |
- Ceyisakar, Iris E., et al.
(författare)
-
Can We Cluster ICU Treatment Strategies for Traumatic Brain Injury by Hospital Treatment Preferences?
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Neurocritical Care. - : Springer. - 1541-6933 .- 1556-0961. ; 36:3, s. 846-856
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In traumatic brain injury (TBI), large between-center differences in treatment and outcome for patients managed in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been shown. The aim of this study is to explore if European neurotrauma centers can be clustered, based on their treatment preference in different domains of TBI care in the ICU.METHODS: Provider profiles of centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI study were used to assess correlations within and between the predefined domains: intracranial pressure monitoring, coagulation and transfusion, surgery, prophylactic antibiotics, and more general ICU treatment policies. Hierarchical clustering using Ward's minimum variance method was applied to group data with the highest similarity. Heat maps were used to visualize whether hospitals could be grouped to uncover types of hospitals adhering to certain treatment strategies.RESULTS: Provider profiles were available from 66 centers in 20 different countries in Europe and Israel. Correlations within most of the predefined domains varied from low to high correlations (mean correlation coefficients 0.2-0.7). Correlations between domains were lower, with mean correlation coefficients of 0.2. Cluster analysis showed that policies could be grouped, but hospitals could not be grouped based on their preference.CONCLUSIONS: Although correlations between treatment policies within domains were found, the failure to cluster hospitals indicates that a specific treatment choice within a domain is not a proxy for other treatment choices within or outside the domain. These results imply that studying the effects of specific TBI interventions on outcome can be based on between-center variation without being substantially confounded by other treatments.TRIAL REGISTRATION: We do not report the results of a health care intervention.
|
|
