Search

Summary: Background: The inflammatory response in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) offers opportunities for stratification and intervention. Previous unselected approaches to immunomodulation in patients with TBI have not improved patient outcomes. Methods: Serum and plasma samples from two prospective, multi-centre observational studies of patients with TBI were used to discover (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research [CENTER-TBI], Europe) and validate (Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury [TRACK-TBI] Pilot, USA) individual variations in the immune response using a multiplex panel of 30 inflammatory mediators. Mediators that were associated with unfavourable outcomes (Glasgow outcome score-extended [GOS-E] ≤ 4) were used for hierarchical clustering to identify patients with similar signatures. Findings: Two clusters were identified in both the discovery and validation cohorts, termed early-inflammatory and pauci-inflammatory. The early-inflammatory phenotype had higher concentrations of interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-15, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1). Patients with the early-inflammatory phenotype were older and more likely to have an unfavourable GOS-E at 6 months. There were no differences in the baseline injury severity scores between patients in each phenotype. A combined IL-15 and MCP1 signature identified patients with the early-inflammatory phenotype in both cohorts. Inflammatory processes mediated outcomes in older patients with moderate-severe TBI. Interpretation: Our findings offer a precision medicine approach for future clinical trials of immunomodulation in patients with TBI, by using inflammatory signatures to stratify patients. Funding: CENTER-TBI study was supported by the European Union 7th Framework Programme. TRACK-TBI is supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Summary: Background: Traumatic brain injury is conventionally categorised as mild, moderate, or severe on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Recently developed biomarkers can provide more objective and nuanced measures of the extent of brain injury. Methods: Exposure–response relationships were investigated in 2479 patients aged ≥16 enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) prospective observational cohort study. Neurofilament protein-light (NFL), ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were assayed from serum sampled in the first 24 h; concentrations were divided into quintiles within GCS severity groups. Relationships with the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended were examined using modified Poisson regression including age, sex, major extracranial injury, time to sample, and log biomarker concentration as covariates. Findings: Within severity groups there were associations between biomarkers and outcomes after adjustment for covariates: GCS 13–15 and negative CT imaging (relative risks [RRs] from 1.28 to 3.72), GCS 13–15 and positive CT (1.21–2.81), GCS 9–12 (1.16–2.02), GCS 3–8 (1.09–1.94). RRs were associated with clinically important differences in expectations of prognosis. In patients with GCS 3 (RRs 1.51–1.80) percentages of unfavourable outcome were 37–51% in the lowest quintiles of biomarker levels and reached 90–94% in the highest quintiles. Similarly, for GCS 15 (RRs 1.83–3.79), the percentages were 2–4% and 19–28% in the lowest and highest biomarker quintiles, respectively. Interpretation: Conventional TBI severity classification is inadequate and underestimates heterogeneity of brain injury and associated outcomes. The adoption of circulating biomarkers can add to clinical assessment of injury severity. Funding: European Union 7th Framework program (EC grant 602150), Hannelore Kohl Stiftung, One Mind, Integra LifeSciences, Neuro-Trauma Sciences, NIHR Rosetrees Trust.

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Trauma (physical injury) is a major cause of death and disability. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is uncontrolled bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a technique whereby a small balloon is inflated in the aorta (main blood vessel) which aims to limit blood loss until an operation can be done to stop the bleeding. In this study, which is the first randomised trial in the world of this technique, we investigated whether adding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to the standard care received in a major trauma centre reduced the risk of death in trauma patients who had life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding. The study took place in 16 major trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Ninety adult trauma patients with confirmed or suspected uncontrolled bleeding took part and were randomly divided into two groups: (1) those who received standard care and (2) those who received standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. We followed participants for 6 months using routinely collected data from the National Health Service and from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. We also contacted surviving patients at 6 months to ask about their quality of life. In the standard care group, 42% of participants died within 90 days of their injury compared to 54% of participants in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group. Risk of death was also higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group at all other time points (3, 6 and 24 hours, in hospital and at 6 months). Overall, the study showed that the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hospital increased the risk of death. Scientific summary Background Trauma is a major cause of death and disability. Trauma (physical injury) disproportionately affects the young, killing those who might otherwise have lived long and productive lives. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. The addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) to current standard care is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite, for definitive haemostasis. Objectives The UK-REBOA trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, open-label, group-sequential, parallel-group randomised controlled trial comparing standard care plus REBOA versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency room. The study included an elicitation exercise, an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation and a health economic evaluation. The primary clinical outcome was 90-day mortality (defined as death within 90 days of injury, before or after discharge from hospital). Secondary clinical outcomes included 3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality, in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit), 24-hour blood product use, need for haemorrhage control procedures (operation or angioembolisation), time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure, complications/safety data and functional outcome [measured using the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E)] at discharge. Economic outcomes were 6-month (within trial) and lifetime (modelled) UK NHS perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) [calculated using EuroQol Group’s 5-dimension health status 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)], 6-month quality of life (measured using EQ-5D-5L). Methods Trauma patients were recruited in 16 UK major trauma centres. Trauma patients aged (or believed to be aged) 16 years or older, with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage thought to be amenable to adjunctive treatment with REBOA were eligible. Women known (or thought to be) pregnant and those with injuries deemed unsurvivable were excluded. The trauma team leader assessed the patients for eligibility. Patients who were eligible for inclusion in the trial were incapacitated and unable to give consent at the time of eligibility assessment and randomisation. There was also not sufficient time to consult a surrogate decision-maker, or even an independent medical practitioner, for advice about including the patient. Enrolment therefore took place without prior consent following Research Ethics Committee approval for this approach. Consent for continuing participation (i.e. data collection) was sought by a member of the UK-REBOA trial team once patients were no longer in a critical condition (defined as being cared for in a ward area rather than an intensive care unit or high-dependency unit) or from a personal (or nominated professional) consultee. The trauma team leader enrolled the participant using a dedicated, secure website, available on a handheld device (smartphone, tablet) or desktop computer which is linked directly to the 24-hour randomisation system at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, based in the Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen. Patients were randomised into one of the two intervention arms, in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, in randomly generated blocks of two or four. Standard care: Patients allocated to the control group received ‘standard care’, as expected in a specialist major trauma centre. Such treatment typically included intubation, blood transfusion including blood products in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio, interventions such as tourniquet application, and early operative or endovascular haemorrhage control. Treatment could also have included open aortic occlusion of the thoracic or abdominal aorta. Standard care plus REBOA: Patients allocated to this arm of the trial additionally received the technique of endovascular aortic occlusion, for the purpose of resuscitation, as part of an overall treatment strategy. The addition of REBOA to current standard care was intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. The trial sought to evaluate the technique of REBOA rather than a specific brand of device, and therefore permitted the use of any licensed occlusion balloon, and did not prescribe or mandate a particular product. The trial had an integrated training programme to ensure familiarity with the REBOA procedure. In patients who had been randomised to the standard care plus REBOA arm of the trial, clinicians could decide not to insert the balloon occlusion device if: the patient’s haemodynamic status improved (as a result of other resuscitative measures), if they were deemed to no longer have life-threatening torso haemorrhage requiring adjunctive treatment with REBOA; they deteriorated (to the point of imminent death); or there was technical difficulty in obtaining arterial access, and it was felt that operative control of haemorrhage could be obtained more quickly. The data collection strategy for the UK-REBOA trial was designed to minimise the burden on participants and clinicians, and for the avoidance of duplication. The randomisation system collected balloon inflation/deflation times. The trial drew on routinely collected data, primarily from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry which includes demographic, injury, treatment and outcome data (including the GOS-E and EQ-5D-5L). Mortality and hospital resource use data were also sought from NHS Digital. The main analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. There were two planned interim analyses of survival and a final analysis of all outcomes after follow-up was complete. Baseline and follow-up data were summarised using descriptive statistics and graphical summaries. Treatment effects are presented with 95% credible intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes. Elicitation exercise An elicitation exercise involving 20 subject matter experts (12 emergency medicine physicians, 3 pre-hospital care doctors, 4 surgeons and 1 intensivist) was undertaken to derive prior probability distributions to help contextualise the interpretation for the primary and secondary outcomes of the trial. Subject matter experts, on average, estimated in-hospital and 90-day mortality in this patient group, without the use of REBOA, to be in excess of 50%. Mortality at earlier time points (6 and 24 hours) was estimated to be closer to 25%. The elicited data, and the resulting prior probability distributions, indicate that the experts, on average, had a favourable opinion of REBOA, that is they expect the addition of REBOA to standard care to improve mortality at all time points. Clinical results Sixteen recruitment sites were opened in a staggered manner. Recruitment commenced in October 2017, was halted in March 2020 due to COVID-19, and restarted in July 2020. The second interim analysis (including 80 participants) triggered one of the pre-specified stopping rules, and recruitment closed in March 2022, by which time 90 participants had been recruited. Forty-four participants were randomised to standard care (2 of whom did receive REBOA) and 46 were randomised to standard care plus REBOA (19 of whom had the catheter inserted and balloon inserted and the remaining 27 progressed to different time points along this pathway). The groups were well-matched in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, mechanism of injury and injury severity. In the standard care arm, the median age was 39 years (interquartile range 30–56 years) and 77% were male. In the standard care plus REBOA arm, the median age was 46 years (interquartile range 33–62) and 61% were male. The median Injury Severity Score in both arms was 41 (interquartile range 29–50), with the majority classed as having very severe injury. Of the 46 patients allocated to standard care plus REBOA treatment, 25 (54%) died within 90 days. Of the 43 standard care patients for whom primary outcome data are available, 18 (42%) died within 90 days. Using the minimally informative prior, the odds of 90-day mortality were 1.58 for patients allocated to the standard care plus REBOA arm (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (i.e. that REBOA was harmful) was 86.9%. The direction of the estimate did not change when an enthusiastic (the elicited) prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality), the posterior probability that REBOA was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at 3, 6 and 24 hours, at 90 days or 6 months, or in-hospital mortality. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus REBOA group than in the standard care group. The mean number of days spent in intensive care and in hospital were lower in the standard care plus REBOA group compared to the standard care group, partly because of the higher number of earlier deaths in the standard care plus REBOA arm. There were no serious adverse device effects. Health economics We costed individual components of resources and summed these to generate a total cost for the whole initial hospitalisation admission period. Total NHS resource use for the index hospitalisation was obtained from patient-level data in TARN and the key resource use variables for costing included time of arrival, time of emergency department departure, time of first operation, time of death/discharge, number and type of operative procedures and volume of blood transfusions that were required. Secondary care contacts and episodes of care that were commenced between the date of discharge from the index hospitalisation through 6 months post randomisation were sourced, where available, through linkage of patient records to the Hospital Episode Statistics database. All costs are reported from a UK NHS perspective in Great British pounds (GBP) (year 2020-1). Quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5L prior to patient’s discharge from their index hospitalisation and at 6 months post admission. EQ-5D-5L asks respondents to report any problems on a given day across five dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety/depression and pain. The data were available from TARN and supplemented with data collected by the local trial teams. EQ-5D-5L data were cross-walked to the 3L version and valued using UK general population preference tariffs. Baseline utility was set equal to the unconscious state (−0.402) and utility following death was set to 0. QALYs were calculated using an area under the curve approach assuming linear extrapolation between time points. From the within-trial health economic analysis, participants in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study incurred lower costs {index hospital admission: mean cost £57,384 [standard deviation (SD) £62,863]} compared to those in standard care [mean cost £116,064 (SD £128,957)]. Lower costs in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study were mainly due to lower use of hospital resources (length of stay, etc.) due to the competing risk of death (i.e. a higher number of deaths in the REBOA plus standard care group). Similarly, life-years accrued and QALYs over 6 months post randomisation were also lower in standard care plus REBOA compared to standard care due to a greater proportion of trial participants dying, with mortality also occurring earlier in the follow-up period for the REBOA arm. The mean life-years gained in the standard care plus REBOA arm was 0.232 (SD 0.247) compared to 0.305 (SD 0.236) in the standard care arm. When modelled over a full lifetime horizon, standard care plus REBOA is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing risk of mortality but is also substantially less effective in terms of QALYs accrued over a lifetime horizon (probability 91%). The findings are robust to a range of scenario analyses undertaken, with the probability of standard care being the optimal treatment strategy ranging from 66% to 81% at a threshold value of a QALY = £50,000. Process evaluation The process evaluation was conducted in two phases; both phases involved interviews with clinical and research staff based at recruitment sites. Phase 1 was designed to identify barriers during trial initial and set-up; Phase 2 focused on exploring barriers and facilitators of recruitment into the trial and intervention delivery. A behavioural framework was used in Phase 2 to direct analysis and generate solutions designed to enhance trial practices, which included regular online meetings between the principal investigators from each site, updates to training materials and delivery, and e-mail/Twitter feedback on recruitment activity. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial ever to be conducted examining the potential clinical effectiveness of REBOA for the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses conducted suggest with high probability that a strategy of standard care plus REBOA is harmful. Implications for health care: The continuing use of REBOA, at least in the UK in-hospital setting, should be re-evaluated. Implications for research: The role (if any) of REBOA in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common presentation in the prehospital environment. At present, paramedics do not routinely use tools to identify low-risk patients who could be left at scene or taken to a local hospital rather than a major trauma centre. The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was developed to guide the use of CT imaging in hospital. It has not been evaluated in the prehospital setting. We aim to address this gap by evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the CCHR to patients and paramedics, and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale clinical trial of its use.Methods and analysis We will recruit adult patients who are being transported to an emergency department (ED) by ambulance after suffering a mild TBI. Paramedics will prospectively collect data for the CCHR. All patients will be transported to the ED, where deferred consent will be taken and the treating clinician will reassess the CCHR, blinded to paramedic interpretation. The primary clinical outcome will be neurosurgically significant TBI. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and attrition rates. We will assess acceptability of the CCHR to paramedics using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument. Interobserver reliability of the CCHR will be assessed between paramedics and the treating clinician in the ED. Participating paramedics and patients will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore the acceptability of trial processes and facilitators and barriers to the use of the CCHR in practice. Data will be analysed thematically. We anticipate recruiting approximately 100 patients over 6 months.Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Health Research Authority and the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 22/NW/0358). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and will be incorporated into a doctoral thesis.Trial registration number ISRCTN92566288.

Introduction Traumatic pneumothoraces are present in one of five victims of severe trauma. Current guidelines advise chest drain insertion for most traumatic pneumothoraces, although very small pneumothoraces can be managed with observation at the treating clinician’s discretion. There remains a large proportion of patients in whom there is clinical uncertainty as to whether an immediate chest drain is required, with no robust evidence to inform practice. Chest drains carry a high risk of complications such as bleeding and infection. The default to invasive treatment may be causing potentially avoidable pain, distress and complications. We are evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial conservative approach to the management of patients with traumatic pneumothoraces.Methods and analysis The CoMiTED (Conservative Management in Traumatic Pneumothoraces in the Emergency Department) trial is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to establish whether initial conservative management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces is non-inferior to invasive management in terms of subsequent emergency pleural interventions, complications, pain, breathlessness and quality of life. We aim to recruit 750 patients from at least 40 UK National Health Service hospitals. Patients allocated to the control (invasive management) group will have a chest drain inserted in the emergency department. For those in the intervention (initial conservative management) group, the treating clinician will be advised to manage the participant without chest drain insertion and undertake observation. The primary outcome is a binary measure of the need for one or more subsequent emergency pleural interventions within 30 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include complications, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported quality of life and patient and clinician views of the two treatment options; participants are followed up for 6 months.Ethics and dissemination This trial received approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference: 22/WA/0118) and the Health Research Authority. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number ISRCTN35574247.

Objective The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/setting An international research priority-setting partnership.Participants People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb.Methods A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021–October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.Results A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions.Conclusions The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Pediatric traumatic brain injury (pTBI) represents a major cause of child injuries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This review aims to assess pTBIs in the MENA region and reports their clinical severity and outcomes. A search was conducted using major electronic databases, including Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. Abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to detect original research. The objective and study findings for each article were recorded, along with the mechanism of pTBI, patient age and sex, injury assessment tool(s) used, and outcome. A total of 1345 articles were retrieved, of which 152 met the criteria for full-text review, and 32 were included in this review. Males predominantly suffered from pTBIs (78%). Motor vehicle accidents, followed by child abuse, were the leading causes of pTBI. Overall, 0.39% of cases were mild, 0.58% moderate, 16.25% severe, and 82.27% unclassified. The mortality rate was 13.11%. Most studies used the computed tomography scan, Glasgow Coma Scale, Abbreviated Injury Scale, and Injury Severity Score as investigation methods. This review reports on the alarming rate of child-abuse?related pTBI and offers further understanding of pTBI-associated risk factors and insight into the development of strategies to reduce their occurrence, as well as policies to promote child well-being.

ObjectivesTo assess whether different cervical spine immobilisation strategies (full immobilisation, movement minimisation or no immobilisation), impact neurological and/or other outcomes for patients with suspected cervical spinal injury in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting.DesignSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until September 2023.Eligibility criteriaAll comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) that examined the potential benefits and/or harms of immobilisation practices during pre-hospital and emergency care of patients with a potential cervical spine injury (pre-imaging) following blunt trauma.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was variable, with most studies having serious or critical risk of bias. The effect of cervical spine immobilisation practices such as full immobilisation or movement minimisation during pre-hospital and emergency care did not show clear evidence of benefit for the prevention of neurological deterioration, spinal injuries and death compared with no immobilisation. However, increased pain, discomfort and anatomical complications were associated with collar application during immobilisation.ConclusionsDespite the limited evidence, weak designs and limited generalisability, the available data suggest that pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation (full immobilisation or movement minimisation) was of uncertain value due to the lack of demonstrable benefit and may lead to potential complications and adverse outcomes. High-quality randomised comparative studies are required to address this important question.Trial registrationPROSPERO REGISTRATION Fiona Lecky, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Anthea Sutton, Carl Marincowitz, Gordon Fuller, Stuart Reid, Jason Smith. A systematic review of cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022349600 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022349600.

Since 1990 National Trauma Registries, — taking the form of “not for profit” small and medium enterprises — have been integral to improvementsin major injury case fatality in high-income settings. This is laudable but unsatisfactory as globally most years of life lost to injury occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). International Journal of Health Policy and Management, recently published a scoping review of neurotrauma registries in LMICs by Barthelemy et al; from this the commentary reflects on the state of the art and how these LMIC registries could be taken to “the next level” as meaningful tools for improving major injury patient care.

Abstract Background Older adults living with frailty who require treatment in hospitals are increasingly seen in the Emergency Departments (EDs). One quick and simple frailty assessment tool—the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)—has been embedded in many EDs in the United Kingdom (UK). However, it carries time/training and cost burden and has significant missing data. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) can be automated and has the potential to reduce costs and increase data availability, but has not been tested for predictive accuracy in the ED. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation between and the ability of the CFS at the ED and HFRS to predict hospital-related outcomes. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study using data from Leicester Royal Infirmary hospital during the period from 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2019. We included individuals aged + 75 years as the HFRS has been only validated for this population. We assessed the correlation between the CFS and HFRS using Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the continuous scores and weighted kappa scores for the categorised scores. We developed logistic regression models (unadjusted and adjusted) to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and Confidence Intervals (CIs), so we can assess the ability of the CFS and HFRS to predict 30-day mortality, Length of Stay (LOS) > 10 days, and 30-day readmission. Results Twelve thousand two hundred thirty seven individuals met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 84.6 years (SD 5.9) and 7,074 (57.8%) were females. Between the CFS and HFRS, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.36 and weighted kappa score was 0.15. When comparing the highest frailty categories to the lowest frailty category within each frailty score, the ORs for 30-day mortality, LOS > 10 days, and 30-day readmission using the CFS were 2.26, 1.36, and 1.64 and for the HFRS 2.16, 7.68, and 1.19. Conclusion The CFS collected at the ED and the HFRS had low/slight agreement. Both frailty scores were shown to be predictors of adverse outcomes. More research is needed to assess the use of historic HFRS in the ED.

Introduction: A common neurosurgical condition, chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) typically affects older people with other underlying health conditions. The care of this potentially vulnerable cohort is often, however, fragmented and suboptimal. In other complex conditions, multidisciplinary guidelines have transformed patient experience and outcomes, but no such framework exists for cSDH. This paper outlines a protocol to develop the first comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline from diagnosis to long-term recovery with cSDH. Methods: The project will be guided by a steering group of key stakeholders and professional organisations and will feature patient and public involvement. Multidisciplinary thematic working groups will examine key aspects of care to formulate appropriate, patient-centered research questions, targeted with evidence review using the GRADE framework. The working groups will then formulate draft clinical recommendations to be used in a modified Delphi process to build consensus on guideline contents. Conclusions: We present a protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary guideline to inform the care of patients with a cSDH, developed by cross-disciplinary working groups and arrived at through a consensus-building process, including a modified online Delphi.

Summary: 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

BackgroundSingle-centre studies suggest that successive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related "lockdown" restrictions in England may have led to significant changes in the characteristics of major trauma patients. There is also evidence from other countries that diversion of intensive care capacity and other healthcare resources to treating patients with COVID-19 may have impacted on outcomes for major trauma patients. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number, characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes of major trauma patients presenting to hospitals in England.Methods and findingsWe completed an observational cohort study and interrupted time series analysis including all patients eligible for inclusion in England in the national clinical audit for major trauma presenting between 1 January 2017 and 31 of August 2021 (354,202 patients). Demographic characteristics (age, sex, physiology, and injury severity) and clinical pathways of major trauma patients in the first lockdown (17,510 patients) and second lockdown (38,262 patients) were compared to pre-COVID-19 periods in 2018 to 2019 (comparator period 1: 22,243 patients; comparator period 2: 18,099 patients). Discontinuities in trends for weekly estimated excess survival rate were estimated when lockdown measures were introduced using segmented linear regression. The first lockdown had a larger associated reduction in numbers of major trauma patients (-4,733 (21%)) compared to the pre-COVID period than the second lockdown (-2,754 (6.7%)). The largest reductions observed were in numbers of people injured in road traffic collisions excepting cyclists where numbers increased. During the second lockdown, there were increases in the numbers of people injured aged 65 and over (665 (3%)) and 85 and over (828 (9.3%)). In the second week of March 2020, there was a reduction in level of major trauma excess survival rate (-1.71%; 95% CI: -2.76% to -0.66%) associated with the first lockdown. This was followed by a weekly trend of improving survival until the lifting of restrictions in July 2020 (0.25; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.35). Limitations include eligibility criteria for inclusion to the audit and COVID status of patients not being recorded.ConclusionsThis national evaluation of the impact of COVID on major trauma presentations to English hospitals has observed important public health findings: The large reduction in overall numbers injured has been primarily driven by reductions in road traffic collisions, while numbers of older people injured at home increased over the second lockdown. Future research is needed to better understand the initial reduction in likelihood of survival after major trauma observed with the implementation of the first lockdown.

Abstract Background Haemorrhage is the most common cause of preventable death after injury. REBOA is a novel technique whereby a percutaneously inserted balloon is deployed in the aorta, providing a relatively quick means of temporarily controlling haemorrhage and augmenting cerebral and coronary perfusion, until definitive control of haemorrhage can be attained. The aim of the UK-REBOA trial is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a policy of standard major trauma centre treatment plus REBOA, as compared with standard major trauma centre treatment alone, for the management of uncontrolled torso haemorrhage caused by injury. Methods Pragmatic, Bayesian, group-sequential, randomised controlled trial, performed in 16 major trauma centres in England. We aim to randomise 120 injured patients with suspected exsanguinating haemorrhage to either standard major trauma centre care plus REBOA or standard major trauma centre care alone. The primary clinical outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary clinical outcomes include 3-h, 6-h, and 24-h mortality; in-hospital mortality; 6-month mortality; length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit); 24-h blood product use; need for haemorrhage control procedure (operation or angioembolisation); and time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure (REBOA, operation, or angioembolisation). The primary economic outcome is lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained, from a health and personal social services perspective. Discussion This study, which is the first to randomly allocate patients to treatment with REBOA or standard care, will contribute high-level evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of REBOA in the management of trauma patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage and will provide important data on the feasibility of implementation of REBOA into mainstream clinical practice. Trial registration ISRCTN16184981

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global health burden that results in disability and loss of health. Identifying those patients who require specialist neuroscience care can be challenging due to the low accuracy of existing prehospital trauma triage tools. Despite the widespread use of decision aids to ‘rule out’ TBI in hospitals, they are not widely used in the prehospital environment. We aim to provide a snapshot of current prehospital practices in the UK, and to explore facilitators and challenges that may be encountered when adopting new tools for decision support.Methods and analysis A mixed-methods study will be conducted using a convergent design approach. In the first phase, we will conduct a national survey of current practice in which every participating ambulance service in the UK will receive an online questionnaire, and only one response is required. In the second phase, semistructured interviews will be conducted to explore the perceptions of ambulance service personnel regarding the implementation of new triage methods that may enhance triage decisions. The survey questions and the interview topic guide were piloted and externally reviewed. Quantitative data will be summarised using descriptive statistics; qualitative data will be analysed thematically.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 22/HRA/2035). Our findings may inform the design of future care pathways and research as well as identify challenges and opportunities for future development of prehospital triage tools for patients with suspected TBI. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, relevant national and international conferences, and will be included in a PhD thesis.

ObjectiveSpine injury is highly prevalent in patients with poly-trauma, but data on the co-occurrence of spine trauma in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are scarce. In this study, we used the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) database to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with TBI and a concurrent traumatic spinal injury (TSI).MethodsData from the European multi-center CENTER-TBI study were analyzed. Adult patients with TBI (≥18 years) presenting with a concomitant, isolated TSI of at least serious severity (Abbreviated Injury Scale; AIS ≥3) were included. For outcome analysis, comparison groups of TBI patients with TSI and systemic injuries (non-isolated TSI) and without TSI were created using propensity score matching. Rates of mortality, unfavorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended; GOSe < 5), and full recovery (GOSe 7–8) of all patients and separately for patients with only mild TBI (mTBI) were compared between groups at 6-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 164 (4%) of the 4,254 CENTER-TBI core study patients suffered from a concomitant isolated TSI. The median age was 53 [interquartile range (IQR): 37–66] years and 71% of patients were men. mTBI was documented in 62% of cases, followed by severe TBI (26%), and spine injuries were mostly cervical (63%) or thoracic (31%). Surgical spine stabilization was performed in 19% of cases and 57% of patients were admitted to the ICU. Mortality at 6 months was 11% and only 36% of patients regained full recovery. There were no significant differences in the 6-month rates of mortality, unfavorable outcomes, or full recovery between TBI patients with and without concomitant isolated TSI. However, concomitant non-isolated TSI was associated with an unfavorable outcome and a higher mortality. In patients with mTBI, a negative association with full recovery could be observed for both concomitant isolated and non-isolated TSI.ConclusionRates of mortality, unfavorable outcomes, and full recovery in TBI patients with and without concomitant, isolated TSIs were comparable after 6 months. However, in patients with mTBI, concomitant TSI was a negative predictor for a full recovery. These findings might indicate that patients with moderate to severe TBI do not necessarily exhibit worse outcomes when having a concomitant TSI, whereas patients with mTBI might be more affected.

Abstract Introduction Retrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major trauma to non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process in order to gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members to define major trauma. Method A two round modified Delphi technique was used to explore subject-expert consensus and identify variables to define major trauma through systematically collating questionnaire responses. After initial descriptive analysis of variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine statistically significant differences (p 70% was achieved on many variables which included the identification of life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need for intensive care interventions and that extremes of age need special consideration. It was also acknowledged that retrospective injury severity scoring has a role to play but is not the only method of defining major trauma. Various factors had a majority of agreement/disagreement but did not meet the pre-set criteria of 70% agreement. These included the topics of burns, spinal immobilisation and whether a major trauma centre is the only place where major trauma can be managed. Conclusion Based upon the output of this Delphi study, major trauma may be defined as: “Significant injury or injuries that have potential to be life-threatening or life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms or low energy mechanisms in those rendered vulnerable by extremes of age”.

Abstract Background Emergency care research into ‘Silver Trauma’, which is simply defined as major trauma consequent upon relatively minor injury mechanisms, is facing many challenges including that at present, there is no clear prioritisation of the issues. This study aimed to determine the top research priorities to guide future research. Methods This consensus-based prioritization exercise used a three-stage modified Delphi technique. The study consisted of an idea generating (divergent) first round, a ranking evaluation in the second round, and a (convergent) consensus meeting in the third round. Results A total of 20 research questions advanced to the final round of this study. After discussing the importance and clinical significance of each research question, five research questions were prioritised by the experts; the top three research priorities were: (1). What are older people’s preferred goals of trauma care? (2). Beyond the Emergency Department (ED), what is the appropriate combined geriatric and trauma care? (3). Do older adults benefit from access to trauma centres? If so, do older trauma patients have equitable access to trauma centre compared to younger adults? Conclusion The results of this study will assist clinicians, researchers, and organisations that are interested in silver trauma in guiding their future efforts and funding toward addressing the identified research priorities.

Abstract Background Physical activity is an important component of healthy lifestyles, with a central role in morbidity prevention. However, sporting and physical activity also involve an inherent injury risk. Some sports and activities have a higher injury risk, and may involve more severe injuries. Furthermore, injuries of a severe nature have substantial individual and societal consequences, including the burden of assessment, treatment, and potential on-going care costs. There are limited data on severe sports injury risk in England and Wales, and no national data describing risk across sports. The aims of this study are to identify the cases and incidence of: i) paediatric and ii) adult severe sports injury from 2012 to 2017; and to describe injury incidence in individual sports. Methods This study is an analysis of prospectively collected sport-related injuries, treated from January 2012 to December 2017. Incidents involving a severe injury (in-patient trauma care) in England and Wales, will be identified from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. Data for patients who were: transfers or direct hospital admissions, with inpatient stays of ≥3 days, admissions to High Dependency areas, or in-hospital mortality after admission; and whose injury mechanism was sport, or incident description included one of 62 sporting activities, will be extracted. Data will be categorised by sport, and sports participation data will be derived from Sport England participation surveys. Descriptive statistics will be estimated for all demographic, incident, treatment and sport fields, and crude serious annual injury incidence proportions estimated. Poisson confidence intervals will be estimated for each sport and used to describe injury risk (incidence) across sporting activities. Discussion This study will be the first to describe the number of, and trends in severe sport-related injuries in England and Wales. These data are useful to monitor the number and burden of severe sports injury, and inform injury prevention efforts. The monitoring and mitigation of sports injury risk is essential for individuals, health services and policy, and to encourage physically active lifestyles and safer participation for adults and children.

Introduction: Neurocognitive problems associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can interact with impairment resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Research question: We aimed to identify neurocognitive problems associated with probable PTSD following TBI in a civilian sample. Material and methods: The study is part of the CENTER-TBI project (Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research) that aims to better characterize TBI. For this cross-sectional study, we included patients of all severities aged over 15, and a Glasgow Outcome Score Extended (GOSE) above 3. Participants were assessed at six months post-injury on the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5), the Trail Making Test (TMT), the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). Primary analysis was a complete case analysis. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between the PCL-5 and cognition. Results: Of the 1134 participants included in the complete case analysis, 13.5% screened positive for PTSD. Probable PTSD was significantly associated with higher TMT-(B-A) (OR ​= ​1.35, 95% CI: 1.14–1.60, p ​

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.

ObjectivesWe aimed to derive and validate a triage tool, based on clinical assessment alone, for predicting adverse outcome in acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 infection.MethodsWe undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. The primary outcome was death or organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal) by record review at 30 days. We split the cohort into derivation and validation sets, developed a clinical score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis using the derivation set, and the estimated discriminant performance using the validation set.ResultsWe analysed 11773 derivation and 9118 validation cases. Multivariable analysis identified that age, sex, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen ratio, performance status, consciousness, history of renal impairment, and respiratory distress were retained in analyses restricted to the ten or fewer predictors. We used findings from multivariable analysis and clinical judgement to develop a score based on the NEWS2 score, age, sex, and performance status. This had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.81) in the validation cohort and predicted adverse outcome with sensitivity 0.98 (0.97-0.98) and specificity 0.34 (0.34-0.35) for scores above four points.ConclusionA clinical score based on NEWS2, age, sex, and performance status predicts adverse outcome with good discrimination in adults with suspected COVID-19 and can be used to support decision-making in emergency care.RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial covariates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However, it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo-R2 of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score-extended) using different imputation strategies on the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study dataset. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness (<< 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. While model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy, this effect was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: the pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.

Background The utilization of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in modern trauma systems has been a source of debate for many years. This study set to establish the true impact of HEMS in England on survival for patients with major trauma.Methods A comparative cohort design using prospectively recorded data from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network registry. 279 107 patients were identified between January 2012 and March 2017. The primary outcome measure was risk adjusted in-hospital mortality within propensity score matched cohorts using logistic regression analysis. Subset analyses were performed for subjects with prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale 29 and systolic blood pressure

Trauma brain injury (TBI) is the most common cause of death and disability in young adults. A method to determine the probability of survival (Ps) in trauma called iterative random comparison classification (IRCC) was developed and its performance was evaluated in TBI. IRCC operates by iteratively comparing the test case with randomly chosen subgroups of cases from a database of known outcomes (survivors and not survivors) and determines the overall percentage match. The performance of IRCC to determine Ps in TBI was compared with two existing methods. One was Ps14 that uses regression and the other was predictive statistical diagnosis (PSD) that is based on Bayesian statistic. The TBI database contained 4124 adult cases (mean age 67.9 years, standard deviation 21.6) of which 3553 (86.2%) were survivors and 571 (13.8%) were not survivors. IRCC determined Ps for the survivors and not survivors with an accuracy of 79.0 and 71.4%, respectively, while the corresponding values for Ps14 were 97.4% (survivors) and 40.2% (not survivors) and for PSD were 90.8% (survivors) and 50% (not survivors). IRCC could be valuable for determining Ps in TBI and with a suitable database in other traumas.

Background: Serum biomarkers may inform and improve care in traumatic brain injury (TBI). We aimed to correlate serum biomarkers with clinical severity, care path and imaging abnormalities in TBI, and explore their incremental value over clinical characteristics in predicting computed tomographic (CT) abnormalities. Methods: We analyzed six serum biomarkers (S100B, NSE, GFAP, UCH-L1, NFL and t-tau) obtained

Background: Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are increasing. Trauma centres play a key role in MCIs due to their readiness and expansive multidisciplinary expertise for injury management. Previous studies have shown deficiencies in trauma centre disaster preparedness. The aim of this study was to describe the current disaster preparedness of Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of all (n = 82) MTCs was undertaken. The anonymous survey collected data about disaster preparedness in nine key areas. Respondents were encouraged to consult appropriately at their centre to provide an accurate representation of their centre's preparedness. Findings: Responses were received from 69 (84%) centres; 61 completed all questions. 91% had a disaster preparedness committee and 80% had an all-hazards emergency plan. 79% had held an MCI drill in the past 2 years. 54% reported a system in place to calculate maximum capacity, but testing of surge capacity was uncommon. 55% reported the presence of stored resources for an MCI and 58% had a database of staff trained in Emergency Management. 74% had a training and education plan available for staff involved in an MCI and a plan for professional debriefing of staff post-MCI, while 62% had a post-disaster employee assistance programme. Most centres had appropriate back-up communication, safety and security plans. Interpretation: The disaster preparedness of MTCs was high for communication, safety and security but there was clear need for improvement in other areas including surge capacity, human resources and post-disaster recovery. Keywords: Trauma centre, Disaster preparedness, Mass casualty incident, Survey, Major trauma

BackgroundHospital emergency departments play a crucial role in the initial assessment and management of suspected COVID-19 infection. This needs to be guided by studies of people presenting with suspected COVID-19, including those admitted and discharged, and those who do not ultimately have COVID-19 confirmed. We aimed to characterise patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19, including subgroups based on sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 test results.Methods and findingsWe undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. Outcomes were admission to hospital, COVID-19 result, organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular or renal), and death, by record review at 30 days. Mean age was 58.4 years, 11200 (50.4%) were female and 11034 (49.6%) male. Adults (age >16 years) were acutely unwell (median NEWS2 score of 4), frequently had limited performance status (46.9%) and had high rates of admission (67.1%), COVID-19 positivity (31.2%), organ support (9.8%) and death (15.5%). Children had much lower rates of admission (27.4%), COVID-19 positivity (1.2%), organ support (1.4%) and death (0.3%). Similar numbers of men and women presented to the ED, but men were more likely to be admitted (72.9% v 61.4%), require organ support (12.2% v 7.7%) and die (18.2% v 13.0%). Black or Asian adults tended to be younger than White adults (median age 54, 50 and 67 years), were less likely to have impaired performance status (43.1%, 26.8% and 51.6%), be admitted to hospital (60.8%, 57.3%, 69.6%) or die (11.6%, 11.2%, 16.4%), but were more likely to require organ support (15.9%, 14.3%, 8.9%) or have a positive COVID-19 test (40.8%, 42.1%, 30.0%). Adults admitted with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 had similar age, performance status and comorbidities (except chronic lung disease) to those who did not have COVID-19 confirmed, but were much more likely to need organ support (22.2% v 8.9%) or die (32.1% v 15.5%).ConclusionsImportant differences exist between patient groups presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19. Adults and children differ markedly and require different approaches to emergency triage. Admission and adverse outcome rates among adults suggest that policies to avoid unnecessary ED attendance achieved their aim. Subsequent COVID-19 confirmation confers a worse prognosis and greater need for organ support.RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56149622, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

Background: Trauma care in England was re-organised in 2012 with ambulance bypass of local hospitals to newly designated Major Trauma Centres (MTCs). There is still controversy about the optimal way to organise health series for patients suffering severe injury. Methods: A longitudinal series of annual cross-sectional studies of care process and outcomes from April 2008 to March 2017. Data was collected through the national clinical audit of major trauma care. The primary analysis was carried out on the 110,863 patients admitted to 35 hospitals that were ‘consistent submitters’ throughout the study period. The main outcome was longitudinal analysis of risk adjusted survival. Findings: Major Trauma networks were associated with significant changes in (1) patient flow (with increased numbers treated in Major Trauma Centres), (2) treatment systems (more consultant led care and more rapid imaging), (3) patient factors (an increase in older trauma), and (4) clinical care (new massive transfusion policies and use of tranexamic acid). There were 10,247 (9.2%) deaths in the 110,863 patients with an ISS of 9 or more. There were no changes in unadjusted mortality. The analysis of trends in risk adjusted survival for study hospitals shows a 19% (95% CI 3%–36%) increase in the case mix adjusted odds of survival from severe injury over the 9-year study period. Interrupted time series analysis showed a significant positive change in the slope after the intervention time point of April 2012 (+0.08% excess survivors per quarter, p = 0.023), in other words an increase of 0.08 more survivors per 100 patients every quarter. Interpretation: A whole system national change was associated with significant improvements in both the care process and outcomes of patients after severe injury. Funding: This analysis was carried out independently and did not receive funding. The data collection for the national clinical audit was funded by subscriptions from participating hospitals. Keywords: Major trauma, Wounds and injuries, Trauma systems

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of death in pregnancy and post partum, but the symptoms of PE are common in normal pregnancy. Simple diagnostic tests are needed to select women for diagnostic imaging. Objective: To estimate the accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical features, decision rules and biomarkers for selecting pregnant or postpartum women with a suspected PE for imaging. Design: An expert consensus study to develop new clinical decision rules, a case–control study of women with a diagnosed PE or a suspected PE, a biomarker study of women with a suspected PE or diagnosed deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and decision-analysis modelling. Setting: Emergency departments and consultant-led maternity units. Participants: Pregnant/postpartum women with a diagnosed PE from any hospital reporting to the UK Obstetric Surveillance System research platform and pregnant/postpartum women with a suspected PE or diagnosed DVT at 11 prospectively recruiting sites. Interventions: Clinical features, decision rules and biomarkers. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health-care costs. Results: The primary analysis involved 181 women with PE and 259 women without PE in the case–control study and 18 women with DVT, 18 with PE and 247 women without either in the biomarker study. Most clinical features showed no association with PE. The AUROC curves for the clinical decision rules were as follows: primary consensus, 0.626; sensitive consensus, 0.620; specific consensus, 0.589; PE rule-out criteria, 0.621; simplified Geneva score, 0.579; Wells’s PE criteria (permissive), 0.577; and Wells’s PE criteria (strict), 0.732. The sensitivities and specificities of the D-dimer measurement were 88.4% and 8.8%, respectively, using a standard threshold, and 69.8% and 32.8%, respectively, using a pregnancy-specific threshold. Previous venous thromboembolism, long-haul travel, multiple pregnancy, oxygen saturation, recent surgery, temperature and PE-related chest radiograph abnormality were predictors of PE on multivariable analysis. We were unable to derive a rule through multivariable analysis or recursive partitioning with adequate accuracy. The AUROC curves for the biomarkers were as follows: activated partial thromboplastin time – 0.669, B-type natriuretic peptide – 0.549, C-reactive protein – 0.542, Clauss fibrinogen – 0.589, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer – 0.668, Innovance D-dimer (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products GmbH, distributed by Sysmex UK Ltd, Milton Keynes, UK) – 0.651, mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MRproANP) – 0.524, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 – 0.562, plasmin-antiplasmin – 0.639, Prothombin time – 0.613, thrombin generation lag time – 0.702, thrombin generation endogenous potential – 0.559, thrombin generation peak – 0.596, thrombin generation time to peak – 0.655, tissue factor – 0.531 and troponin – 0.597. The repeat analysis excluding women who had received anticoagulation was limited by the small number of women with PE (n = 4). The health economic analysis showed that a strategy of scanning all women with a suspected PE accrued more QALYs and incurred fewer costs than any selective strategy based on a clinical decision rule and was therefore the dominant strategy. Limitations: The findings apply specifically to the diagnostic assessment of women with a suspected PE in secondary care. Conclusions: Clinical features, decision rules and biomarkers do not accurately, effectively or cost-effectively select pregnant or postpartum women with a suspected PE for diagnostic imaging. Future work: New diagnostic technologies need to be developed to detect PE in pregnancy. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21245595. Funding details: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Reconfiguration of trauma services, with direct transport of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients to neuroscience centres (NCs), bypassing non-specialist acute hospitals (NSAHs), could potentially improve outcomes. However, delays in stabilisation of airway, breathing and circulation (ABC) and the difficulties in reliably identifying TBI at scene may make this practice deleterious compared with selective secondary transfer from nearest NSAH to NC. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and systematic reviews suggested equipoise and poor-quality evidence – with regard to ‘early neurosurgery’ in this cohort – which we sought to address. Methods: Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of bypass to NC conducted in two ambulance services with the ambulance station (n = 74) as unit of cluster [Lancashire/Cumbria in the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) and the North East Ambulance Service (NEAS)]. Adult patients with signs of isolated TBI [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 0.05) in the 273 (159/113) patients with data available. There were no apparent differences in staff and patient preferences for either pathway, with satisfaction high with both. Very low responses to invitations to consent for follow-up in the large number of mild head injury-enrolled patients meant that only 20% of patients had 6-month outcomes. The trial-based economic evaluation could not focus on early neurosurgery because of these low numbers but instead investigated the comparative cost-effectiveness of bypass compared with selective secondary transfer for eligible patients at the scene of injury. Conclusions: Current NHS England practice of bypassing patients with suspected TBI to neuroscience centres gives overtriage ratios of 13 : 1 for neurosurgery and 4 : 1 for TBI. This important finding makes studying the impact of bypass to facilitate early neurosurgery not plausible using this study design. Future research should explore an efficient comparative effectiveness design for evaluating ‘early neurosurgery through bypass’ and address the challenge of reliable TBI diagnosis at the scene of injury. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68087745. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Determining the probability of survival after injury is important as it can inform triage, clinical research and audit. A number of methods have been reported for determining the probability of survival after injury. However, these have shortcomings and thus further developments are needed to improve their reliability and accuracy. In this study, a Bayesian method called Predictive Statistical Diagnosis (PSD) was developed to determine probability of survival in 4124 adults (age: mean = 67.9 years, standard deviation = 21.6 years) with traumatic brain injuries (TBI). In total, 86.2% of cases had survived and 13.8% of cases had not survived their injuries. The parameters considered as inputs to PSD were age, abbreviated injury score (AIS), Glasgow coma score (GCS), pulse rate (PR), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and respiration rate (RR). PSD statistically modeled the TBI cases and their associated injury outcomes, i.e., survived or not survived. The model was calibrated on randomly selected, roughly 2/3 (number 2676), of the cases and its performance was validated on the remaining cases (number 1448, i.e., validation dataset). The effectiveness of PSD in determining the probability of survival was compared with a method called Ps14 that uses regression modeling. With all parameters (i.e., age, AIS, GCS, SBP, RR and PR) included as inputs to PSD, it correctly identified 90.8% of survivors and 50.0% of non-survivors in the validation dataset while Ps14 identified 97.4% of survivors and 40.2% of non-survivors in the validation dataset. When age, AIS and GCS were used on their own as inputs to PSD, it correctly identified 82.4% of the survivors and 65.0% of non-survivors in the validation dataset. Age affected the performance of PSD in determining the survival outcomes. The number of non-surviving cases included in this study may have not been sufficiently high to indicate the full potential of PSD and a further study with a larger number of cases would be beneficial.