The Roles of Protocols and Protocolization in Improving Outcome From Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Author:

Chesnut Randall M.1234ORCID,Temkin Nancy15,Videtta Walter6,Lujan Silvia78,Petroni Gustavo3,Pridgeon Jim1,Dikmen Sureyya9,Chaddock Kelley1,Hendrix Terence10,Barber Jason1,Machamer Joan1,Guadagnoli Nahuel78,Hendrickson Peter1,Alanis Victor11,La Fuente Gustavo12,Lavadenz Arturo13,Merida Roberto14,Sandi Lora Freddy15,Romero Ricardo16,Pinillos Oscar17,Urbina Zulma18,Figueroa Jairo19,Ochoa Marcelo20,Davila Rafael21,Mora Jacobo22,Bustamante Luis23,Perez Carlos24,Leiva Jorge25,Carricondo Carlos26,Mazzola Ana Maria27,Guerra Juan28

Affiliation:

1. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;

2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;

3. School of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;

4. Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;

5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;

6. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Nacional Professor Alejandro Posadas, Buenos Aires, Argentina;

7. Hospital Emergencia, Dr Clemente Alvarez, Rosario, Argentina;

8. Centro de Informatica e Investigacion Clinica, Rosario, Argentina;

9. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;

10. San Diego, California, USA;

11. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital San Juan de Dios, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia;

12. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Japones, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia;

13. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Videma, Cochabamba, Bolivia;

14. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital San Juan de Dios, Tarija, Bolivia;

15. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Obrero No 1, La Paz, Bolivia;

16. Terapia Intensiva, Fundacion Clinica Campbell, Barranquilla, Colombia;

17. Terapia Intensiva, Clinica Universitaria Rafael Uribe, Cali, Colombia;

18. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Erasmo Meoz ICU No 1, Cucuta, Colombia;

19. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Erasmo Meoz ICU No 2, Cucuta, Colombia;

20. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital José Carrasco Artega, Cuenca, Ecuador;

21. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Luis Razetti, Barinas, Venezuela;

22. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Luis Razetti, Barcelona, Venezuela;

23. Terapia Intensiva, Delicia Conception Hospital Masvernat, Concordia, Entre Ríos, Argentina;

24. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Justo José de Urquiza, Concepción del Uruguay, Entre Ríos, Argentina;

25. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina;

26. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Central, Mendoza, Argentina;

27. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital San Felipe, Buenos Aires, Argentina;

28. Terapia Intensiva, Hospital COSSMIL Militar, Louisiana Paz, Bolivia

Abstract

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

Funder

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

Fogarty International Center

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3