Testing the Impact of Protocolized Care of Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Without Intracranial Pressure Monitoring: The Imaging and Clinical Examination Protocol

Author:

Chesnut Randall M.1ORCID,Temkin Nancy1,Videtta Walter2,Lujan Silvia3,Petroni Gustavo3,Pridgeon Jim1,Dikmen Sureyya1,Chaddock Kelley1,Hendrix Terence4,Barber Jason1,Machamer Joan1,Guadagnoli Nahuel5,Hendrickson Peter1,Alanis Victor6,La Fuente Gustavo7,Lavadenz Arturo8,Merida Roberto9,Lora Freddy Sandi10,Romero Ricardo11,Pinillos Oscar12,Urbina Zulma13,Figueroa Jairo14,Ochoa Marcelo15,Davila Rafael16,Mora Jacobo17,Bustamante Luis18,Perez Carlos19,Leiva Jorge20,Carricondo Carlos21,Mazzola Ana Maria22,Guerra Juan23

Affiliation:

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

2. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Nacional Professor Alejandro Posadas, Buenos Aires, Argentina;

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

4. San Diego, California, USA;

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

6. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital San Juan de Dios, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia;

7. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Japones, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia;

8. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Videma, Cochabamba, Bolivia;

9. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital San Juan de Dios, Tarija, Bolivia;

10. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Obrero No 1, La Paz, Bolivia;

11. Medicina Intensiva, Fundacion Clinica Campbell, Barranquilla, Colombia;

12. Medicina Intensiva, Clinica Universitaria Rafael Uribe, Cali, Colombia;

13. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Erasmo Meoz ICU No 1, Cucuta, Colombia;

14. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Erasmo Meoz ICU No 2, Cucuta, Colombia;

15. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital José Carrasco Artega, Cuenca, Ecuador;

16. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Luis Razetti, Barinas, Venezuela;

17. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Luis Razetti, Barcelona, Venezuela;

18. Medicina Intensiva, Delicia Conception Hospital Masvernat, Concordia, Entre Ríos, Argentina;

19. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Justo José de Urquiza, Concepción del Uruguay, Entre Ríos, Argentina;

20. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina;

21. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Central, Mendoza, Argentina;

22. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital San Felipe, San Nicolás, Buenos Aires, Argentina;

23. Medicina Intensiva, Hospital COSSMIL Militar, La Paz, Bolivia

Abstract

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

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