| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(author)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
In: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- van Essen, Thomas A, et al.
(author)
-
Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI) : an observational cohort study
- 2023
-
In: eClinicalMedicine. - : Elsevier. - 2589-5370. ; 63
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Limited evidence existed on the comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) versus craniotomy for evacuation of traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) until the recently published randomised clinical trial RESCUE-ASDH. In this study, that ran concurrently, we aimed to determine current practice patterns and compare outcomes of primary DC versus craniotomy.METHODS: We conducted an analysis of centre treatment preference within the prospective, multicentre, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (known as CENTER-TBI) and NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry (known as Net-QuRe) studies, which enrolled patients throughout Europe and Israel (2014-2020). We included patients with an ASDH who underwent acute neurosurgical evacuation. Patients with severe pre-existing neurological disorders were excluded. In an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference, measured by the case-mix adjusted proportion DC per centre. The primary outcome was functional outcome rated by the 6-months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582).FINDINGS: Between December 19, 2014 and December 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI of whom 336 (7%) underwent acute surgery for ASDH evacuation; 91 (27%) underwent DC and 245 (63%) craniotomy. The proportion primary DC within total acute surgery cases ranged from 6 to 67% with an interquartile range (IQR) of 12-26% among 46 centres; the odds of receiving a DC for prognostically similar patients in one centre versus another randomly selected centre were trebled (adjusted median odds ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001). Higher centre preference for DC over craniotomy was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio (OR) per 14% [IQR increase] more DC in a centre = 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1], n = 200). Primary DC was associated with more follow-on surgeries and complications [secondary cranial surgery 27% vs. 18%; shunts 11 vs. 5%]; and similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 14% IQR more primary DC 1.3 [95% CI (1.0-3.4), n = 200]).INTERPRETATION: We found substantial practice variation in the employment of DC over craniotomy for ASDH. This variation in treatment strategy did not result in different functional outcome. These findings suggest that primary DC should be restricted to salvageable patients in whom immediate replacement of the bone flap is not possible due to intraoperative brain swelling.FUNDING: Hersenstichting Nederland for the Dutch NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.
|
|
| 7. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: Critical Care. - : Springer. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 21:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- van Essen, Thomas A., et al.
(author)
-
Surgery versus conservative treatment for traumatic acute subdural haematoma : a prospective, multicentre, observational, comparative effectiveness study
- 2022
-
In: Lancet Neurology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-4422 .- 1474-4465. ; 21:7, s. 620-631
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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).
|
|
| 12. |
- Zeiler, Frederick Adam, et al.
(author)
-
Statistical cerebrovascular reactivity signal properties after secondary decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury : A CENTER-TBI pilot analysis
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 37:11, s. 1306-1314
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Decompressive craniectomy (DC) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been suggested to influence cerebrovascular reactivity. We aimed to determine if the statistical properties of vascular reactivity metrics and slow-wave relationships were impacted after DC, as such information would allow us to comment on whether vascular reactivity monitoring remains reliable after craniectomy. Using the CENTER-TBI high-resolution intensive care unit (ICU) cohort, we selected those secondary DC patients with high-frequency physiologic data for both: at least 24 hours before DC, and more than 48 hours post-DC. Data for all physiology measures was separated into: the 24 hours before DC, the first 48 hours post DC, and beyond 48 hours post-DC. We produced slow-wave data sheets for intra-cranial pressure (ICP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) per patient. We also derived pressure reactivity index (PRx) as continuous cerebrovascular reactivity metrics updated every minute. The time-series behavior of PRx was modeled for each time period per patient. Finally, the relationship between ICP and MAP during these 3 time periods was assessed using time-series vector autoregressive integrative moving average (VARIMA) models, impulse response function (IRF) plots, and Granger causality testing. Ten patients were included in this study. Mean PRx and proportion of time above PRx thresholds were not affected by craniectomy. Similarly, PRx time-series structure was not affected by DC, when assessed in each individual patient. This was confirmed with Granger causality testing, and VARIMA IRF plotting for the MAP/ICP slow-wave relationship. PRx metrics and statistical time-series behavior appears not to be substantially influenced by DC. Similarly, there is little change in the relationship between slow-waves of ICP and MAP before and after DC. This may suggest that cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring in the setting of DC may still provide valuable information regarding autoregulation. Keywords: cerebrovascular reactivity, decompressive craniectomy, DC, PRx, TBI.
|
|
