| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : Springer. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI.METHODS: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed on the basis of literature and expert opinion, and it was pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.RESULTS: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately 90% of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomographic abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first- and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as using a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%).CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with TBI and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Chetaille, Philippe, et al.
(författare)
-
Mutations in SGOL1 cause a novel cohesinopathy affecting heart and gut rhythm
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Nature Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1061-4036 .- 1546-1718. ; 46:11, s. 1245-1249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The pacemaking activity of specialized tissues in the heart and gut results in lifelong rhythmic contractions. Here we describe a new syndrome characterized by Chronic Atrial and Intestinal Dysrhythmia, termed CAID syndrome, in 16 French Canadians and 1 Swede. We show that a single shared homozygous founder mutation in SGOL1, a component of the cohesin complex, causes CAID syndrome. Cultured dermal fibroblasts from affected individuals showed accelerated cell cycle progression, a higher rate of senescence and enhanced activation of TGF-beta signaling. Karyotypes showed the typical railroad appearance of a centromeric cohesion defect. Tissues derived from affected individuals displayed pathological changes in both the enteric nervous system and smooth muscle. Morpholino-induced knockdown of sgol1 in zebrafish recapitulated the abnormalities seen in humans with CAID syndrome. Our findings identify CAID syndrome as a novel generalized dysrhythmia, suggesting a new role for SGOL1 and the cohesin complex in mediating the integrity of human cardiac and gut rhythm.
|
|
| 6. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(författare)
-
Prehospital Trauma Care among 68 European Neurotrauma Centers : Results of the CENTER-TBI Provider Profiling Questionnaires
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 36:1, s. 176-181
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The first hour following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered crucial to prevent death and disability. It is, however, not established yet how the prehospital care should be organized to optimize recovery during the first hour. The objective of the current study was to examine variation in prehospital trauma care across Europe aiming to inform comparative effectiveness analyses on care for neurotrauma patients. A survey on prehospital trauma care was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers from 20 European countries participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study. The survey was developed using literature review and expert opinion and was pilot tested in 16 centers. All participants completed the questionnaire. Advanced life support was used in half of the centers (n = 35; 52%), whereas the other centers used mainly basic life support (n = 26; 38%). A mobile medical team (MMT) could be dispatched 24/7 in most centers (n = 66; 97%). Helicopters were used in approximately half of the centers to transport the MMT to the scene (n = 39; 57%) and the patient to the hospital (n = 31, 46%). Half of the centers used a stay-and-play approach at the scene (n = 37; 55%), while the others used a scoop-and-run approach or another policy. We found wide variation in prehospital trauma care across Europe. This may reflect differences in socio-economic situations, geographic differences, and a general lack of strong evidence for some aspects of prehospital care. The current variation provides the opportunity to study the effectiveness of prehospital interventions and systems of care in comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
| 7. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(författare)
-
Rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury : A survey in 70 European neurotrauma centres participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 49:5, s. 395-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To describe variation in structural and process characteristics of acute in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care for patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe.DESIGN: Survey study, of neurotrauma centres.METHODS: A 14-item survey about in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care was sent to 71 neurotrauma centres participating in a European multicentre study (CENTER-TBI). The questionnaire was developed based on literature and expert opinion and was pilot-tested before sending out to the centres.RESULTS: Seventy (99%) centres in 20 countries completed the survey. The included centres were predominately academic level I trauma centres. Among the 70 centres, a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team can be consulted at 41% (n = 29) of the intensive care units and 49% (n = 34) of the wards. Only 13 (19%) centres used rehabilitation guidelines in patients with traumatic brain injury. Age was reported as a major determinant of referral decisions in 32 (46%) centres, with younger patients usually referred to specialized rehabilitation centres, and patients ≥ 65 years also referred to nursing homes or local hospitals.CONCLUSION: Substantial variation exists in structural and process characteristics of in-hospital acute rehabilitation and referral to post-acute rehabilitation facilities among neurotrauma centres across Europe.
|
|
| 8. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury : Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study
- 2016
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLOS). - 1932-6203. ; 11:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions.RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers.CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.
|
|
| 9. |
- Foks, Kelly A., et al.
(författare)
-
Management of mild traumatic brain injury at the emergency department and hospital admission in Europe : A survey of 71 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 34:17, s. 2529-2535
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Previous studies have indicated that there is no consensus about management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) at the emergency department (ED) and during hospital admission. We aim to study variability between management policies for TBI patients at the ED and hospital ward across Europe. Centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study received questionnaires about different phases of TBI care. These questionnaires included 71 questions about TBI management at the ED and at the hospital ward. We found differences in how centers defined mTBI. For example, 40 centers (59%) defined mTBI as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score between 13-15 and 26 (38%) as a GCS score between 14-15. At the ED various guidelines for the use of head CT in mTBI patients were used; 32 centers (49%) used national guidelines, 10 centers (15%) local guidelines and 14 centers (21%) used no guidelines at all. Also differences in indication for admission between centers were found. After ED discharge, 7 centers (10%) scheduled a routine follow-up appointment, while 38 (54%) did so only after ward admission. In conclusion, large between-center variation exists in policies for diagnostics, admission and discharge decisions in patients with mTBI at the ED and in hospital. Guidelines are not always operational in centers, and reported policies systematically diverge from what is recommended in those guidelines. The results of this study may be useful in the understanding of mTBI care in Europe and show the need for further studies on the effectiveness of different policies on outcome.
|
|
| 10. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in Blood Transfusion and Coagulation Management in Traumatic Brain Injury at the Intensive Care Unit : A Survey in 66 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 35:2, s. 323-332
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Our aim was to describe current approaches and to quantify variability between European intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Therefore, we conducted a provider profiling survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The ICU Questionnaire was sent to 68 centers from 20 countries across Europe and Israel. For this study, we used ICU questions focused on 1) hemoglobin target level (Hb-TL), 2) coagulation management, and 3) deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis. Seventy-eight participants, mostly intensivists and neurosurgeons of 66 centers, completed the ICU questionnaire. For ICU-patients, half of the centers (N = 34; 52%) had a defined Hb-TL in their protocol. For patients with TBI, 26 centers (41%) indicated an Hb-TL between 70 and 90 g/L and 38 centers (59%) above 90 g/L. To treat trauma-related hemostatic abnormalities, the use of fresh frozen plasma (N = 48; 73%) or platelets (N = 34; 52%) was most often reported, followed by the supplementation of vitamin K (N = 26; 39%). Most centers reported using DVT prophylaxis with anticoagulants frequently or always (N = 62; 94%). In the absence of hemorrhagic brain lesions, 14 centers (21%) delayed DVT prophylaxis until 72 h after trauma. If hemorrhagic brain lesions were present, the number of centers delaying DVT prophylaxis for 72 h increased to 29 (46%). Overall, a lack of consensus exists between European ICUs on blood transfusion and coagulation management. The results provide a baseline for the CENTER-TBI study, and the large between-center variation indicates multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
