Search

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a huge public health and societal problem worldwide. Uncertainty exists on how care system and treatment approaches for TBI worked in China may differ from those in Europe. Better knowledge on this is important to facilitate interpretation of findings reported by Chinese researchers and to inform opportunities for collaborative studies. We aimed to investigate concordance and variations in TBI care between Chinese and European neurotrauma centers. Investigators from 52 centers in China and 68 in Europe involved in the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study were invited to complete provider profiling (PP) questionnaires, which covered the main aspects of care system and treatment approaches of TBI care. Participating Chinese and European centers were mainly publicly funded and academic. More centers in China indicated available dedicated neuro-intensive care than those in Europe (98% vs. 60%), and treatment decisions in the ICU were mainly determined by neurosurgeons (58%) in China while in Europe, (neuro)intensivists often took the lead (61%). The ambulance dispatching system was automatic in half of Chinese centers (49%), whereas selective dispatching was more common in European centers (74%). For treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension, a decompressive craniectomy was more frequently regarded as general policy in China compared with in Europe (89% vs. 45%). We observed both concordance and substantial variations with regard to the various aspects of TBI care between Chinese and European centers. These findings are fundamental to guide future research and offer opportunities for collaborative comparative effectiveness research to identify best practices.

Background Although rehabilitation is beneficial for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI), a significant proportion of them do not receive adequate rehabilitation after acute care. Objective Therefore, the goal of this prospective and multicenter study was to investigate predictors of access to rehabilitation in the year following injury in patients with TBI. Methods Data from a large European study (CENTER-TBI), including TBIs of all severities between December 2014 and December 2017 were used (N = 4498 patients). Participants were dichotomized into those who had and those who did not have access to rehabilitation in the year following TBI. Potential predictors included sociodemographic factors, psychoactive substance use, preinjury medical history, injury-related factors, and factors related to medical care, complications, and discharge. Results In the year following traumatic injury, 31.4% of patients received rehabilitation services. Access to rehabilitation was positively and significantly predicted by female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.50), increased number of years of education completed (OR = 1.05), living in Northern (OR = 1.62; reference: Western Europe) or Southern Europe (OR = 1.74), lower prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR = 1.03), higher Injury Severity Score (OR = 1.01), intracranial (OR = 1.33) and extracranial (OR = 1.99) surgery, and extracranial complication (OR = 1.75). On contrast, significant negative predictors were lack of preinjury employment (OR = 0.80), living in Central and Eastern Europe (OR = 0.42), and admission to hospital ward (OR = 0.47; reference: admission to intensive care unit) or direct discharge from emergency room (OR = 0.24). Conclusions Based on these findings, there is an urgent need to implement national and international guidelines and strategies for access to rehabilitation after TBI.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is currently classified as mild, moderate, or severe TBI by trichotomizing the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). We aimed to explore directions for a more refined multidimensional classification system. For that purpose, we performed a hypothesis-free cluster analysis in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI) database: a European all-severity TBI cohort (n = 4509). The first building block consisted of key imaging characteristics, summarized using principal component analysis from 12 imaging characteristics. The other building blocks were demographics, clinical severity, secondary insults, and cause of injury. With these building blocks, the patients were clustered into four groups. We applied bootstrap resampling with replacement to study the stability of cluster allocation. The characteristics that predominantly defined the clusters were injury cause, major extracranial injury, and GCS. The clusters consisted of 1451, 1534, 1006, and 518 patients, respectively. The clustering method was quite stable: the proportion of patients staying in one cluster after resampling and reclustering was 97.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.6-99.9%). These clusters characterized groups of patients with different functional outcomes: from mild to severe, 12%, 19%, 36%, and 58% of patients had unfavorable 6 month outcome. Compared with the mild and the upper intermediate cluster, the lower intermediate and the severe cluster received more key interventions. To conclude, four types of TBI patients may be defined by injury mechanism, presence of major extracranial injury and GCS. Describing patients according to these three characteristics could potentially capture differences in etiology and care pathways better than with GCS only.

Background The burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a large public health and societal problem, but the characteristics of patients and their care pathways in Europe are poorly understood. We aimed to characterise patient case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes of TBI.Methods CENTER-TBI is a Europe-based, observational cohort study, consisting of a core study and a registry. Inclusion criteria for the core study were a clinical diagnosis of TBI, presentation fewer than 24 h after injury, and an indication for CT. Patients were differentiated by care pathway and assigned to the emergency room (ER) stratum (patients who were discharged from an emergency room), admission stratum (patients who were admitted to a hospital ward), or intensive care unit (ICU) stratum (patients who were admitted to the ICU). Neuroimages and biospecimens were stored in repositories and outcome was assessed at 6 months after injury. We used the IMPACT core model for estimating the expected mortality and proportion with unfavourable Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) outcomes in patients with moderate or severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] scoreFindings Data from 4509 patients from 18 countries, collected between Dec 9,2014, and Dec 17,2017, were analysed in the core study and from 22782 patients in the registry. In the core study, 848 (19%) patients were in the ER stratum, 1523 (34%) in the admission stratum, and 2138 (47%) in the ICU stratum. In the ICU stratum, 720 (36%) patients had mild TBI (GCS score 13-15). Compared with the core cohort, the registry had a higher proportion of patients in the ER (9839 [43%]) and admission (8571138%1) strata, with more than 95% of patients classified as having mild TBI. Patients in the core study were older than those in previous studies (median age 50 years [IQR 30-66], 1254 128%1 aged >65 years), 462 (11%) had serious comorbidities, 772 (18%) were taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication, and alcohol was contributor

Anxiety, aggression/agitation, apathy and disinhibition are common neuropsychiatric consequences of acquired brain injury (ABI); these consequences can cause functional impairment and lead to reduced social integration. This systematic review aims to provide an examination of the current evidence on psychological interventions for treating these consequences. Two reviewers selected potential relevant articles, retrieved from five literature databases; methodological quality was assessed and appraised. A total of 5207 studies were found, of which 43 were included: 21 studies for anxiety, 18 for aggression, two studies for apathy, and six for disinhibition. Three studies addressed multiple consequences. Four high-quality (i.e., Class I and II) studies showed significant decreases in anxiety after cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). In total, 14 studies consistently showed significant decreases in aggression/agitation after behavioural management techniques or anger management sessions. Substantial variability existed in the examined interventions and in their effects on apathy and disinhibition. Unfortunately, firm conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice are considered premature, due to concerns about the methodology used. However, this review yielded new evidence on the effectiveness of CBT for anxiety symptoms post-ABI and there has been some response to the ongoing call for studies with high methodological quality.

OBJECTIVE:: To investigate the concomitant effects of two patient-directed interventions for post-stroke depressive symptoms on caregivers' well-being.DESIGN:: Secondary analyses of the results of a randomized controlled trial.SUBJECTS:: Fifty caregivers of stroke patients receiving outpatient rehabilitation.INTERVENTIONS:: Stroke patients and their caregivers were randomly allocated to either cognitive-behavioural therapy augmented with movement or occupational therapy ( n = 23) or computerized cognitive training ( n = 27) to alleviate depressive symptoms in patients.MAIN MEASURES:: Emotional burden (Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire), practical burden (Caregiver Strain Index), mental health (General Health Questionnaire) and emotional complaints (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale).RESULTS:: Caregivers of patients who received cognitive-behavioural therapy reported significantly higher mental health levels (mean difference (MD) = 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.43-3.13, P = 0.01) and less worrying about patients' well-being (MD = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.56-3.24, P < 0.01). In addition, there were positive time effects on the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire for Brain Injury, particularly the subscales Worrying, Supervision and Tension.CONCLUSION:: The results suggest that augmented cognitive-behavioural therapy aimed at improving patients' emotional, behavioural and social functioning positively affects some aspects of caregivers' well-being.

Observer variability in local radiological reading is a major concern in large-scale multi-center traumatic brain injury (TBI) studies. A central review process has been advocated to minimize this variability. The aim of this study is to compare central with local reading of TBI imaging datasets and to investigate the added value of central review. A total of 2050 admission computed tomography (CT) scans from subjects enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study were analyzed for seven main CT characteristics. Kappa statistics were used to calculate agreement between central and local evaluations and a center-specific analysis was performed. The McNemar test was used to detect whether discordances were significant. Central interobserver and intra-observer agreement was calculated in a subset of patients. Good agreement was found between central and local assessment for the presence or absence of structural pathology (CT+, CT-, kappa = 0.73) and most CT characteristics (kappa = 0.62 to 0.71), except for traumatic axonal injury lesions (kappa = 0.37). Despite good kappa values, discordances were significant in four of seven CT characteristics (i.e., midline shift, contusion, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and cisternal compression; p = 0.0005). Central reviewers showed substantial to excellent interobserver and intra-observer agreement (kappa = 0.73 to kappa = 0.96), contrasted by considerable variability in local radiological reading. Compared with local evaluation, a central review process offers a more consistent radiological reading of acute CT characteristics in TBI. It generates reliable, reproducible data and should be recommended for use in multi-center TBI studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Most survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) suffer from cardiologic symptoms and approximately half of them experience cognitive problems because of hypoxic brain damage. Symptoms of anxiety and depression are also common. This review aims to give an overview of recent literature on rehabilitation treatment aiming at improvement of quality of life after OHCA.RECENT FINDINGS: Existing cognitive screening tools are now validated for OHCA survivors. OHCA patients with cognitive deficits may have lower exercise capacity. Cardiac rehabilitation seems to be well tolerated for OHCA survivors, with outcomes comparable to myocardial infarction patients. Many caregivers suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder and emotional stress. Interventions for them are available. Implementation of integrated programs covering both cognitive and cardiac rehabilitation is hampered by lack of knowledge and organizational barriers.SUMMARY: OHCA survivors should be routinely screened for cognitive and emotional problems. When patients with mild cognitive deficits participate in cardiac rehabilitation, their program should be adjusted to their cognitive abilities. For patients with severe cognitive or emotional problems, individualized rehabilitation seems favorable. Integrated rehabilitation treatment between cardiac and cognitive rehabilitation departments is recommended. Attention should be paid to the burden of caregivers.

Cognitive deficits such as memory problems have a major impact on independence in daily life and participation in society in several populations, such as people with dementia, brain injury (i.e. stroke) or a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. Similarities in the impact on participation and well-being have resulted in the development of comparable psychosocial interventions across populations, aiming to support people to adapt to cognitive deficits or by adapting the environment. These interventions are developed separately, without using the expertise in other fields. We argue that each of the fields and the field of psychosocial care in general would benefit from closer collaboration on development and evaluation of innovative psychosocial interventions. Collaboration has been complicated by the use of different care models and theoretical frameworks, each with their own terminology. The concept of social health - the ability to participate in work or other meaningful activities and to feel healthy despite a condition - translates to the leading care models within the fields of dementia, brain injury and severe mental illness. The concept of social health provides a common language and framework. In this paper, we elaborate on strategies for collaboration using examples of interventions to improve social health.

Brain training is topical yet controversial. Effects are often limited to trained tasks; and near and far effects to untrained tasks or everyday life measures are often small or lacking altogether. More recent approaches use evidence from cognitive neuroscience on neuroplasticity, resulting in novel cognitive interventions. This special issue encompasses the state of the art of these interventions. Two systematic reviews and nine experimental studies in a variety of patient groups or healthy participants are included, the results of which mostly confirm earlier findings: effects on trained tasks are consistently reported, but generalisation in terms of functional outcome is limited and little evidence is found of long-term effects. In general, the studies show promising, yet challenging training effects on cognition in healthy persons and patients with cognitive deficits. As such, they may be seen as positive "proof of principle" studies, highlighting that cognitive enhancement is possible. The field of brain training, however, is in urgent need of larger and more thoroughly designed studies. These future studies should also include outcome measures on daily functioning, self-efficacy and quality of life in addition to neuropsychological tests or tasks related to cognitive functioning.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the ZMILE study was to compare the effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) over a six-month period.METHODS: Participants (PWE & relative) were randomized into intervention or CAU groups. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure disease-specific self-efficacy as the primary outcome measure and general self-efficacy, adherence, seizure severity, emotional functioning, quality of life, proactive coping, and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) as secondary outcome measures. Instruments used at baseline and during a six-month follow-up period were the following: disease-specific self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES], General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]); adherence (Medication Adherence Scale [MARS] and Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]); seizure severity (National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale [NHS3]); emotional well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]); quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy [QOLIE-31P]); proactive coping (Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence [UPCC]); and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs [SIDAED]. Multilevel analyses were performed, and baseline differences were corrected by inclusion of covariates in the analyses.RESULTS: In total, 102 PWE were included in the study, 52 of whom were in the intervention group. On the SIDAED and on three of the quality of life subscales QOLIE-31P, a significant difference was found (p<0.05) in the intervention group. Self-efficacy, however, showed no significant differences between the MCI and the CAU groups. None of the other outcome measures showed any significant difference between the two groups.SIGNIFICANCE: Although we found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome measure, disease-specific self-efficacy, this MCI could prove promising, since we found improvement in some domains of qual