Accuracy of head computed tomography scoring systems in predicting outcomes for patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A ProTECT III ancillary study

Abstract

Background

Several types of head CT classification systems have been developed to prognosticate and stratify TBI patients.

Objective

The purpose of our study was to compare the predictive value and accuracy of the different CT scoring systems, including the Marshall, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Helsinki, and NIRIS systems, to inform specific patient management actions, using the ProTECT III population of patients with moderate to severe acute traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Methods

We used the data collected in the patients with moderate to severe (GCS score of 4–12) TBI enrolled in the ProTECT III clinical trial. ProTECT III was a NIH-funded, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to determine the efficacy of early administration of IV progesterone. The CT scoring systems listed above were applied to the baseline CT scans obtained in the trial. We assessed the predictive accuracy of these scoring systems with respect to Glasgow Outcome Scale—Extended at 6 months, disability rating scale score, and mortality.

Results

A total of 882 subjects were enrolled in ProTECT III. Worse scores for each head CT scoring systems were highly correlated with unfavorable outcome, disability outcome, and mortality. The NIRIS classification was more strongly correlated than the Stockholm and Rotterdam CT scores, followed by the Helsinki and Marshall CT classification. The highest correlation was observed between NIRIS and mortality (estimated odds ratios of 4.83).

Conclusion

All scores were highly associated with 6-month unfavorable, disability and mortality outcomes. NIRIS was also accurate in predicting TBI patients’ management and disposition.

Keywords

Clinical decision support common data elements CT outcome TBI

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Feigin

V.L.

Theadom

Barker-Collo

, et al. Incidence of traumatic brain injury in New Zealand: a population-based study. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12(1): 53–64.

Centers for Disease C, Prevention . CDC grand rounds: reducing severe traumatic brain injury in the United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013; 62(27): 549–552.

Taylor

Bell

Breiding

, et al.

Traumatic brain injury-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths - United States, 2007 and 2013

MMWR Surveill Summ 2017; 66(9): 1–16.

Thelin

Nelson

Vehvilainen

, et al. Evaluation of novel computerized tomography scoring systems in human traumatic brain injury: an observational, multicenter study. PLoS Medicine 2017; 14(8): e1002368.

Babl

Borland

Phillips

, et al. Paediatirc Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389(10087): 2393–2402.

Shetty

Reis

Aulino

, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria head trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13(6): 668–679.

Ruff

Iverson

Barth

, et al. NAN Policy and Planning CommitteeRecommendations for diagnosing a mild traumatic brain injury: a National Academy of Neuropsychology education paper. Arch Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal Natl Acad Neuropsychologists 2009; 24(1): 3–10.

Jagoda

Bazarian

Bruns

Jr. , et al. Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. J Emerg Nurs 2009; 35(2): e5–40.

Douglas

Toffoli

, et al. Neuroimaging of Traumatic Brain Injury. Med Sciences (Basel, Switzerland) 2018; 7(1).

10.

Marshall

Klauber

, et al. The diagnosis of head injury requires a classification based on computed axial tomography. J Neurotrauma 1992; 9(Suppl 1): S287–S292.

11.

Maas

Hukkelhoven

Marshall

, et al. Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors. Neurosurgery 2005; 57(6): 1173–1182, discussion 1173-1182.

12.

Nelson

Nystrom

MacCallum

, et al. Extended analysis of early computed tomography scans of traumatic brain injured patients and relations to outcome. J Neurotrauma 2010; 27(1): 51–64.

13.

Raj

Siironen

Skrifvars

, et al. Predicting outcome in traumatic brain injury: development of a novel computerized tomography classification system (Helsinki computerized tomography score). Neurosurgery 2014; 75(6): 632–646, discussion 646-637.

14.

Wintermark

Ding

, et al. Neuroimaging radiological interpretation system for acute traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2018; 35(22): 2665–2672.

15.

Wright

Yeatts

Silbergleit

, et al. Very early administration of progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2014; 371(26): 2457–2466.

16.

Denninghoff

Nuno

Pauls

, et al. Prehospital intubation is associated with favorable outcomes and lower mortality in ProTECT III. Prehosp Emerg Care 2017; 21(5): 539–544.

17.

Frankel

Fan

Yeatts

, et al. The association of very early serum levels of S100B, GFAP, UCH-L1, and SBDP with Outcome in ProTECT III. J Neurotrauma 2019.

18.

Unden

Ingebrigtsen

Romner

, et al. Scandinavian guidelines for initial management of minimal, mild and moderate head injuries in adults: an evidence and consensus-based update. BMC Medicine 2013; 11: 50.

19.

Rubin

Kahn

Jr . Common data elements in radiology. Radiology 2017; 283(3): 837–844.

20.

Jennett

Bond

. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1975; 1(7905): 480–484.

21.

Wilson

Pettigrew

Teasdale

. Structured interviews for the glasgow outcome scale and the extended glasgow outcome scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma 1998; 15(8): 573–585.

22.

Rappaport

Hall

Hopkins

, et al. Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982; 63(3): 118–123.

23.

Zhou

Ding

, et al. Validation of the neuroimaging radiological interpretation system for acute traumatic brain injury. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019; 43(5): 690–696.

24.

Livingston

Lavery

Passannante

, et al. Emergency department discharge of patients with a negative cranial computed tomography scan after minimal head injury. Ann Surg 2000; 232(1): 126–132.

25.

Velmahos

Gervasini

Petrovick

, et al. Routine repeat head CT for minimal head injury is unnecessary. J Trauma 2006; 60(3): 494–499, discussion 499-501.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB