Cargando…
Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
IMPORTANCE: Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been used for decades as a treatment for children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is recommended by evidenced-based guidelines. However, these recommendations are based on limited studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CSF diversi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Medical Association
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9270700/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35802371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20969 |
_version_ | 1784744523316854784 |
---|---|
author | Bell, Michael J. Rosario, Bedda L. Kochanek, Patrick M. Adelson, P. David Morris, Kevin P. Au, Alicia K. Schober, Michelle Butt, Warwick Edwards, Richard J. Zimmerman, Jerry Pineda, Jose Le, Truc M. Dean, Nathan Whalen, Michael J. Figaji, Anthony Luther, James Beers, Sue R. Gupta, Deepak K. Carpenter, Jessica Buttram, Sandra Wisniewski, Stephen R. |
author_facet | Bell, Michael J. Rosario, Bedda L. Kochanek, Patrick M. Adelson, P. David Morris, Kevin P. Au, Alicia K. Schober, Michelle Butt, Warwick Edwards, Richard J. Zimmerman, Jerry Pineda, Jose Le, Truc M. Dean, Nathan Whalen, Michael J. Figaji, Anthony Luther, James Beers, Sue R. Gupta, Deepak K. Carpenter, Jessica Buttram, Sandra Wisniewski, Stephen R. |
author_sort | Bell, Michael J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | IMPORTANCE: Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been used for decades as a treatment for children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is recommended by evidenced-based guidelines. However, these recommendations are based on limited studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CSF diversion is associated with improved Glasgow Outcome Score–Extended for Pediatrics (GOS-EP) and decreased intracranial pressure (ICP) in children with severe TBI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational comparative effectiveness study was performed at 51 clinical centers that routinely care for children with severe TBI in 8 countries (US, United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India) from February 2014 to September 2017, with follow-up at 6 months after injury (final follow-up, October 22, 2021). Children with severe TBI were included if they had Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 8 or lower, had intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor placed on-site, and were aged younger than 18 years. Children were excluded if they were pregnant or an ICP monitor was not placed at the study site. Consecutive children were screened and enrolled, data regarding treatments were collected, and at discharge, consent was obtained for outcomes testing. Propensity matching for pretreatment characteristics was performed to develop matched pairs for primary analysis. Data analyses were completed on April 18, 2022. EXPOSURES: Clinical care followed local standards, including the use of CSF diversion (or not), with patients stratified at the time of ICP monitor placement (CSF group vs no CSF group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was GOS-EP at 6 months, while ICP was considered as a secondary outcome. CSF vs no CSF was treated as an intention-to-treat analysis, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for children who received delayed CSF diversion. RESULTS: A total of 1000 children with TBI were enrolled, including 314 who received CSF diversion (mean [SD] age, 7.18 [5.45] years; 208 [66.2%] boys) and 686 who did not (mean [SD] age, 7.79 [5.33] years; 437 [63.7%] boys). The propensity-matched analysis included 98 pairs. In propensity score–matched analyses, there was no difference between groups in GOS-EP (median [IQR] difference, 0 [−3 to 1]; P = .08), but there was a decrease in overall ICP in the CSF group (mean [SD] difference, 3.97 [0.12] mm Hg; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this comparative effectiveness study, CSF diversion was not associated with improved outcome at 6 months after TBI, but a decrease in ICP was observed. Given the higher quality of evidence generated by this study, current evidence-based guidelines related to CSF diversion should be reconsidered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9270700 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | American Medical Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92707002022-07-25 Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Bell, Michael J. Rosario, Bedda L. Kochanek, Patrick M. Adelson, P. David Morris, Kevin P. Au, Alicia K. Schober, Michelle Butt, Warwick Edwards, Richard J. Zimmerman, Jerry Pineda, Jose Le, Truc M. Dean, Nathan Whalen, Michael J. Figaji, Anthony Luther, James Beers, Sue R. Gupta, Deepak K. Carpenter, Jessica Buttram, Sandra Wisniewski, Stephen R. JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been used for decades as a treatment for children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is recommended by evidenced-based guidelines. However, these recommendations are based on limited studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CSF diversion is associated with improved Glasgow Outcome Score–Extended for Pediatrics (GOS-EP) and decreased intracranial pressure (ICP) in children with severe TBI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational comparative effectiveness study was performed at 51 clinical centers that routinely care for children with severe TBI in 8 countries (US, United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India) from February 2014 to September 2017, with follow-up at 6 months after injury (final follow-up, October 22, 2021). Children with severe TBI were included if they had Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 8 or lower, had intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor placed on-site, and were aged younger than 18 years. Children were excluded if they were pregnant or an ICP monitor was not placed at the study site. Consecutive children were screened and enrolled, data regarding treatments were collected, and at discharge, consent was obtained for outcomes testing. Propensity matching for pretreatment characteristics was performed to develop matched pairs for primary analysis. Data analyses were completed on April 18, 2022. EXPOSURES: Clinical care followed local standards, including the use of CSF diversion (or not), with patients stratified at the time of ICP monitor placement (CSF group vs no CSF group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was GOS-EP at 6 months, while ICP was considered as a secondary outcome. CSF vs no CSF was treated as an intention-to-treat analysis, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for children who received delayed CSF diversion. RESULTS: A total of 1000 children with TBI were enrolled, including 314 who received CSF diversion (mean [SD] age, 7.18 [5.45] years; 208 [66.2%] boys) and 686 who did not (mean [SD] age, 7.79 [5.33] years; 437 [63.7%] boys). The propensity-matched analysis included 98 pairs. In propensity score–matched analyses, there was no difference between groups in GOS-EP (median [IQR] difference, 0 [−3 to 1]; P = .08), but there was a decrease in overall ICP in the CSF group (mean [SD] difference, 3.97 [0.12] mm Hg; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this comparative effectiveness study, CSF diversion was not associated with improved outcome at 6 months after TBI, but a decrease in ICP was observed. Given the higher quality of evidence generated by this study, current evidence-based guidelines related to CSF diversion should be reconsidered. American Medical Association 2022-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9270700/ /pubmed/35802371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20969 Text en Copyright 2022 Bell MJ et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Bell, Michael J. Rosario, Bedda L. Kochanek, Patrick M. Adelson, P. David Morris, Kevin P. Au, Alicia K. Schober, Michelle Butt, Warwick Edwards, Richard J. Zimmerman, Jerry Pineda, Jose Le, Truc M. Dean, Nathan Whalen, Michael J. Figaji, Anthony Luther, James Beers, Sue R. Gupta, Deepak K. Carpenter, Jessica Buttram, Sandra Wisniewski, Stephen R. Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury |
title | Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury |
title_full | Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury |
title_fullStr | Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury |
title_short | Comparative Effectiveness of Diversion of Cerebrospinal Fluid for Children With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury |
title_sort | comparative effectiveness of diversion of cerebrospinal fluid for children with severe traumatic brain injury |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9270700/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35802371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20969 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bellmichaelj comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT rosariobeddal comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT kochanekpatrickm comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT adelsonpdavid comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT morriskevinp comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT aualiciak comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT schobermichelle comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT buttwarwick comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT edwardsrichardj comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT zimmermanjerry comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT pinedajose comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT letrucm comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT deannathan comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT whalenmichaelj comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT figajianthony comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT lutherjames comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT beerssuer comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT guptadeepakk comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT carpenterjessica comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT buttramsandra comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury AT wisniewskistephenr comparativeeffectivenessofdiversionofcerebrospinalfluidforchildrenwithseveretraumaticbraininjury |