Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Ross, Miner
• Pang, Priscilla S
• Raslan, Ahmed M
• Selden, Nathan R
• Cetas, Justin S

Titel

External retrospective validation of Brain Injury Guidelines criteria and modified guidelines for improved care value in the management of patients with low-risk neurotrauma

Ist Teil von

• Journal of neurosurgery, 2020-12, Vol.133 (6), p.1-1885

Ort / Verlag

United States

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Conventional management of patients with neurotrauma frequently consists of routine, repeat head CT at preordained intervals with ICU-level monitoring, regardless of injury severity. The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) are a classification tool for stratifying patients into injury severity and risk-of-progression categories based on presenting clinical and radiographic findings. In the present study, the authors aimed to validate BIG criteria at a single level 1 trauma center. Patients were classified according to BIG criteria and evaluated for subsequent radiographic progression or development of neurological decline. A 2-year retrospective cohort review of consecutive patients with neurotrauma (n = 590) was undertaken. The authors then developed a modified BIG algorithm for use at their institution and followed its implementation prospectively over 555 consecutive patients. In the retrospective analysis, no patient in the BIG 1 category (n = 88, 14.9%) demonstrated progression or neurological decline, and 7.5% of BIG 2 patients (n = 107, 18.1%) demonstrated mild radiographic progression without any decline or need for additional neurosurgical or medical intervention, whereas 15.4% of BIG 3 patients (n = 395, 66.9%) underwent additional neurosurgical procedures. In the prospective analysis, no BIG 1 (n = 105, 18.9%) or BIG 2 (n = 48, 8.6%) patients demonstrated a clinical decline or required any further neurosurgical intervention. By contrast, 12.9% of BIG 3 patients (n = 402, 72%) required immediate neurosurgical intervention, and a further 2.0% required delayed intervention based on clinical and/or radiographic evidence of injury progression. Application of the BIG criteria in a single large level 1 trauma center reliably sorted patients into appropriate risk categories that accurately guided ongoing management.