Search

Background and Objectives: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global public health problem. It is a leading cause of death and disability in children and adolescents worldwide. Although increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is common and associated with death and poor outcome after pediatric TBI, the efficacy of current ICP-based management remains controversial. We intend to provide Class I evidence testing the efficacy of a protocol based on current ICP monitor-based management vs care based on imaging and clinical examination without ICP monitoring in pediatric severe TBI., Methods: A phase III, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized superiority trial performed in intensive care units in Central and South America to determine the impact on 6-month outcome of children aged 1-12 years with severe TBI (age-appropriate Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8) randomized to ICP-based or non-ICP-based management., Expected Outcomes: Primary outcome is 6-month Pediatric Quality of Life. Secondary outcomes are 3-month Pediatric Quality of Life, mortality, 3-month and 6-month Pediatric extended Glasgow Outcome Score, intensive care unit length of stay, and number of interventions focused on treating measured or suspected intracranial hypertension., Discussion: This is not a study of the value of knowing the ICP in sTBI. This research question is protocol-based. We are investigating the added value of protocolized ICP management to treatment based on imaging and clinical examination in the global population of severe pediatric TBI. Demonstrating efficacy should standardize ICP monitoring in severe pediatric TBI. Alternate results should prompt reassessment of how and in which patients ICP data should be applied in neurotrauma care., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: The efficacy of our current approach to incorporating intracranial pressure (ICP) data into pediatric severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) management is incompletely understood, lacking data from multicenter, prospective, randomized studies. The National Institutes of Health-supported Benchmark Evidence from Latin America-Treatment of Raised Intracranial Pressure-Pediatrics trial will compare outcomes from pediatric sTBI of a management protocol based on ICP monitoring vs 1 based on imaging and clinical examination without monitoring. Because no applicable comprehensive management algorithms for either cohort are available, it was necessary to develop them., Methods: A consensus conference involving the 21 intensivists and neurosurgeons from the 8 trial sites used Delphi-based methodology to formulate management algorithms for both study cohorts. We included recommendations from the latest Brain Trauma Foundation pediatric sTBI guidelines and the consensus-based adult algorithms (Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference/Consensus Revised Imaging and Clinical Examination) wherever relevant. We used a consensus threshold of 80%., Results: We developed comprehensive management algorithms for monitored and nonmonitored cohort children with sTBI. We defined suspected intracranial hypertension for the nonmonitored group, set minimum number and timing of computed tomography scans, specified minimal age-adjusted mean arterial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure targets, defined clinical neuroworsening, described minimal requisites for intensive care unit management, produced tiered management algorithms for both groups, and listed treatments not routinely used., Conclusion: We will study these protocols in the Benchmark Evidence from Latin America-Treatment of Raised Intracranial Pressure-Pediatrics trial in low- and middle-income countries. Second, we present them here for consideration as prototype pediatric sTBI management algorithms in the absence of published alternatives, acknowledging their limited evidentiary status. Therefore, herein, we describe our study design only, not recommended treatment protocols., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Our Phase-I parallel-cohort study suggested that managing severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) in the absence of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring using an ad hoc Imaging and Clinical Examination (ICE) treatment protocol was associated with superior outcome vs nonprotocolized management but could not differentiate the influence of protocolization from that of the specific protocol. Phase II investigates whether adopting the Consensus REVised Imaging and Clinical Examination (CREVICE) protocol improved outcome directly or indirectly via protocolization., Methods: We performed a Phase-II sequential parallel-cohort study examining adoption of the CREVICE protocol from no protocol vs a previous protocol in patients with sTBI older than 13 years presenting ≤24 hours after injury. Primary outcome was prespecified 6-month recovery. The study was done mostly at public South American centers managing sTBI without ICP monitoring. Fourteen Phase-I nonprotocol centers and 5 Phase-I protocol centers adopted CREVICE. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equation regression adjusting for demographic imbalances., Results: A total of 501 patients (86% male, mean age 35.4 years) enrolled; 81% had 6 months of follow-up. Adopting CREVICE from no protocol was associated with significantly superior results for overall 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Score (GOSE) (protocol effect = 0.53 [0.11, 0.95], P = .013), mortality (36% vs 21%, HR = 0.59 [0.46, 0.76], P < .001), and orientation (Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test discharge protocol effect = 10.9 [6.0, 15.8], P < .001, 6-month protocol effect = 11.4 [4.1, 18.6], P < .005). Adopting CREVICE from ICE was associated with significant benefits to GOSE (protocol effect = 0.51 [0.04, 0.98], P = .033), 6-month mortality (25% vs 18%, HR = 0.55 [0.39, 0.77], P < .001), and orientation (Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test 6-month protocol effect = 9.2 [3.6, 14.7], P = .004). Comparing both groups using CREVICE, those who had used ICE previously had significantly better GOSE (protocol effect = 1.15 [0.09, 2.20], P = .033)., Conclusion: Centers managing adult sTBI without ICP monitoring should strongly consider protocolization through adopting/adapting the CREVICE protocol. Protocolization is indirectly supported at sTBI centers regardless of resource availability., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) in low- or-middle-income countries and surprisingly many in high-income countries are managed without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. The impact of the first published protocol (Imaging and Clinical Examination [ICE] protocol) is untested against nonprotocol management., Objective: To determine whether patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs) using the ICE protocol have lower mortality and better neurobehavioral functioning than those treated in ICUs using no protocol., Methods: This study involved nineteen mostly public South American hospitals. This is a prospective cohort study, enrolling patients older than 13 years with sTBI presenting within 24 h of injury (January 2014-July 2015) with 6-mo postinjury follow-up. Five hospitals treated all sTBI cases using the ICE protocol; 14 used no protocol. Primary outcome was prespecified composite of mortality, orientation, functional outcome, and neuropsychological measures., Results: A total of 414 patients (89% male, mean age 34.8 years) enrolled; 81% had 6 months of follow-up. All participants included in composite outcome analysis: average percentile (SD) = 46.8 (24.0) nonprotocol, 56.9 (24.5) protocol. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) used to account for center effects (confounder-adjusted difference [95% CI] = 12.2 [4.6, 19.8], P = .002). Kaplan-Meier 6-month mortality (95% CI) = 36% (30%, 43%) nonprotocol, 25% (19%, 31%) protocol (GEE and confounder-adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] = .69 [.43, 1.10], P = .118). Six-month Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale for 332 participants: average Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale score (SD) = 3.6 (2.6) nonprotocol, 4.7 (2.8) protocol (GEE and confounder-adjusted and lost to follow-up-adjusted difference [95% CI] = 1.36 [.55, 2.17], P = .001)., Conclusion: ICUs managing patients with sTBI using the ICE protocol had better functional outcome than those not using a protocol. ICUs treating patients with sTBI without ICP monitoring should consider protocolization. The ICE protocol, tested here and previously, is 1 option., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2022. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although in the developed world the intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor is considered the standard of care for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), its usefulness to direct treatment decisions has never been tested rigorously., Objective: The primary focus was to conduct a high-quality, randomized, controlled trial to determine whether ICP monitoring used to direct TBI treatment improves patient outcomes. By providing education, equipment, and structure, the project will enhance the research capacity of the collaborating investigators and will foster the collaborations established during earlier studies., Methods: Study centers were selected that routinely treated ICP based on clinical examination and computed tomography imaging using internal protocols. We randomized patients to either an ICP monitor group or an imaging and clinical examination group. Treatment decisions for the ICP monitor group are guided by ICP monitoring based on established guidelines. Treatment decisions for the imaging and clinical examination group are made using a single protocol derived from those previously being used at those centers., Expected Outcomes: There are 2 study hypotheses: (1) patients with severe TBI whose acute care treatment is managed using ICP monitors will have improved outcomes and 2) incorporating ICP monitoring in the care of patients with severe TBI will minimize complications and decrease length of intensive care unit stay., Discussion: This clinical trial tests the effectiveness of a management protocol based on technology considered pivotal to brain trauma treatment in the developed world: the ICP monitor. A randomized, controlled trial of ICP monitoring has never been performed-a critical gap in the evidence base that supports the role of ICP monitoring in TBI care. As such, the results of this randomized, controlled trial will have global implications regardless of the level of development of the trauma system.