Search

Background: Economic evaluations provide a unique opportunity to identify the optimal strategies for the diagnosis and management of traumatic brain injury (TBI), for which uncertainty is common and the economic burden is substantial., Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review and examine the quality of contemporary economic evaluations in the diagnosis and management of TBI., Methods: Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, EconLit, and the Tufts CEA Registry for comparative economic evaluations published from 2000 onward (last updated on August 30, 2013). Data on methods, results, and quality were abstracted in duplicate. The results were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively., Results: Of 3539 citations, 24 economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. Nine were cost-utility, five were cost-effectiveness, three were cost-minimization, and seven were cost-consequences analyses. Only six studies were of high quality. Current evidence from high-quality studies suggests the economic attractiveness of the following strategies: a low medical threshold for computed tomography (CT) scanning of asymptomatic infants with possible inflicted TBI, selective CT scanning of adults with mild TBI as per the Canadian CT Head Rule, management of severe TBI according to the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, management of TBI in dedicated neurocritical care units, and early transfer of patients with TBI with nonsurgical lesions to neuroscience centers., Conclusions: Threshold-guided CT scanning, adherence to Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, and care for patients with TBI, including those with nonsurgical lesions, in specialized settings appear to be economically attractive strategies., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Decompressive craniectomy and barbiturate coma are often used as second-tier strategies when intracranial hypertension following severe traumatic brain injury is refractory to first-line treatments. Uncertainty surrounds the decision to choose either treatment option. We investigated which strategy is more economically attractive in this context., Design: We performed a cost-utility analysis. A Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation model with a life-long time horizon was created to compare quality-adjusted survival and cost of the two treatment strategies, from the perspective of healthcare payer. Model parameters were estimated from the literature. Two-dimensional simulation was used to incorporate parameter uncertainty into the model. Value of information analysis was conducted to identify major drivers of decision uncertainty and focus future research., Setting: Trauma centers in the United States., Subjects: Base case was a population of patients (mean age = 25 yr) who developed refractory intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury., Interventions: We compared two treatment strategies: decompressive craniectomy and barbiturate coma., Measurements and Main Results: Decompressive craniectomy was associated with an average gain of 1.5 quality-adjusted life years relative to barbiturate coma, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,565/quality-adjusted life year gained. Decompressive craniectomy resulted in a greater quality-adjusted life expectancy 86% of the time and was more cost-effective than barbiturate coma in 78% of cases if our willingness-to-pay threshold is $50,000/quality-adjusted life year and 82% of cases at a threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year. At older age, decompressive craniectomy continued to increase survival but at higher cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $197,906/quality-adjusted life year at mean age = 85 yr)., Conclusions: Based on available evidence, decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury provides better value in terms of costs and health gains than barbiturate coma. However, decompressive craniectomy might be less economically attractive for older patients. Further research, particularly on natural history of severe traumatic brain injury patients, is needed to make more informed treatment decisions.

Background: The optimal timing of tracheostomy in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is controversial; observational studies have been challenged through confounding by indication, and interventional studies have rarely enrolled patients with isolated TBI., Methods: We included a cohort of adults with isolated TBI who underwent tracheostomy within 1 of 135 participating centers in the American College of Surgeons' Trauma Quality Improvement Program, during 2009 to 2011. Patients were classified as having undergone early tracheostomy (ET, ≤8 days) versus late tracheostomy (>8 days). Outcomes were compared between propensity score-matched groups to reduce confounding by indication. In sensitivity analyses, we used time-dependent proportional hazard regression to address immortal time bias and assessed the association between hospital ET rate and patients' outcome at the hospital level., Results: From 1,811 patients, a well-balanced propensity-matched cohort of 1,154 patients was defined. After matching, ET was associated with fewer mechanical ventilation days (median, 10 days vs. 16 days; rate ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.75), shorter intensive care unit stay (median, 13 days vs. 19 days; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75), shorter hospital length of stay (median, 20 days vs. 27 days; RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), and lower odds of pneumonia (41.7% vs. 52.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80), deep venous thrombosis (8.2% vs. 14.4%; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.78), and decubitus ulcer (4.0% vs. 8.9%; OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.71) but no significant difference in pulmonary embolism (1.8% vs. 3.3%; OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.10). Hospital mortality was similar between both groups (8.4% vs. 6.8%; OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.80-1.96). Results were consistent using several alternate analytic methods., Conclusion: In this observational study, ET was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay but not hospital mortality. ET may represent a mechanism to reduce in-hospital morbidity for patients with TBI., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level II.

Although existing guidelines support the utilization of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), the evidence suggesting benefit is limited. To evaluate the impact on outcome, we determined the relationship between ICP monitoring and mortality in centers participating in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP). Data on 10,628 adults with severe TBI were derived from 155 TQIP centers over 2009-2011. Random-intercept multilevel modeling was used to evaluate the association between ICP monitoring and mortality after adjusting for important confounders. We evaluated this relationship at the patient level and at the institutional level. Overall mortality (n=3769) was 35%. Only 1874 (17.6%) patients underwent ICP monitoring, with a mortality of 32%. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.63], when comparing patients with ICP monitoring to those without. It is plausible that patients receiving ICP monitoring were selected because of an anticipated favorable outcome. To overcome this limitation, we stratified hospitals into quartiles based on ICP monitoring utilization. Hospitals with higher rates of ICP monitoring use were associated with lower mortality: The adjusted OR of death was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.35-0.78) in the quartile of hospitals with highest use, compared to the lowest. ICP monitoring utilization rates explained only 9.9% of variation in mortality across centers. Results were comparable irrespective of the method of case-mix adjustment. In this observational study, ICP monitoring utilization was associated with lower mortality. However, variability in ICP monitoring rates contributed only modestly to variability in institutional mortality rates. Identifying other institutional practices that impact on mortality is an important area for future research.

Outcome after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) differs substantially between hospitals. Explaining this variation begins with understanding the differences in structures and processes of care, particularly at intensive care units (ICUs) where acute TBI care takes place. We invited trauma medical directors (TMDs) from 187 centers participating in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) to complete a survey. The survey domains included ICU model, type, availability of specialized units, staff, training programs, standard protocols and order sets, approach to withdrawal of life support, and perceived level of neurosurgeons' engagement in the ICU management of TBI. One hundred forty-two TMDs (76%) completed the survey. Severe TBI patients are admitted to dedicated neurocritical care units in 52 hospitals (37%), trauma ICUs in 44 hospitals (31%), general ICUs in 34 hospitals (24%), and surgical ICUs in 11 hospitals (8%). Fifty-seven percent are closed units. Board-certified intensivists directed 89% of ICUs, whereas 17% were led by neurointensivists. Sixty percent of ICU directors were general surgeons. Thirty-nine percent of hospitals had critical care fellowships and 11% had neurocritical care fellowships. Fifty-nine percent of ICUs had standard order sets and 61% had standard protocols specific for TBI, with the most common protocol relating to intracranial pressure management (53%). Only 43% of TMDs were satisfied with the current level of neurosurgeons' engagement in the ICU management of TBI; 46% believed that neurosurgeons should be more engaged; 11% believed they should be less engaged. In the largest survey of North American ICUs caring for TBI patients, there is substantial variation in the current approaches to ICU care for TBI, highlighting multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]