Comparative Analysis of Clinical Severity and Outcomes in Penetrating Versus Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury Propensity Matched Cohorts

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurotrauma reports Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1089/neur.2024.0009
Ali Mansour, Plamena Powla, Ronald Alvarado-Dyer, Farima Fakhri, Paramita Das, Peleg Horowitz, Fernando D. Goldenberg, Christos Lazaridis
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Clinical Severity and Outcomes in Penetrating Versus Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury Propensity Matched Cohorts","authors":"Ali Mansour, Plamena Powla, Ronald Alvarado-Dyer, Farima Fakhri, Paramita Das, Peleg Horowitz, Fernando D. Goldenberg, Christos Lazaridis","doi":"10.1089/neur.2024.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global health challenge; however, penetrating brain injury (PBI) remains under-represented in evidence-based knowledge and research efforts. This study utilized data from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) to investigate outcomes of PBI as compared with clinical-severity-matched non-penetrating or blunt TBI. A total of 1765 patients with PBI were 1:1 propensity score-matched for clinical severity with blunt TBI patients. The intent of PBI was self-inflicted in 34.1% of the cases, and the mechanism was firearm-inflicted in 89.1%. Mortality was found to be significantly more common in PBI than in the severity- matched TBI cohort (33.9% vs. 14.3 %, p < 0.001) as was unfavorable outcome. Mortality was mediated by withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WOLST) 30% of the time, and WOLST occurred earlier (median 3 days vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) in PBI. Increased rate of mortality was observed with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of <11 in PBI as compared with <7 in blunt TBI. In conclusion, PBI patients exhibited higher mortality rates and unfavorable outcomes; one third of excess mortality was mediated by WOLST. The study also brings into question the applicability of the conventional TBI classification, based on GCS, in PBI. We emphasize the need to address the observed disparities and better understand the distinctive characteristics and mechanisms underlying PBI outcomes to improve patient care and reduce mortality.","PeriodicalId":74300,"journal":{"name":"Neurotrauma reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotrauma reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2024.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global health challenge; however, penetrating brain injury (PBI) remains under-represented in evidence-based knowledge and research efforts. This study utilized data from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) to investigate outcomes of PBI as compared with clinical-severity-matched non-penetrating or blunt TBI. A total of 1765 patients with PBI were 1:1 propensity score-matched for clinical severity with blunt TBI patients. The intent of PBI was self-inflicted in 34.1% of the cases, and the mechanism was firearm-inflicted in 89.1%. Mortality was found to be significantly more common in PBI than in the severity- matched TBI cohort (33.9% vs. 14.3 %, p < 0.001) as was unfavorable outcome. Mortality was mediated by withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WOLST) 30% of the time, and WOLST occurred earlier (median 3 days vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) in PBI. Increased rate of mortality was observed with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of <11 in PBI as compared with <7 in blunt TBI. In conclusion, PBI patients exhibited higher mortality rates and unfavorable outcomes; one third of excess mortality was mediated by WOLST. The study also brings into question the applicability of the conventional TBI classification, based on GCS, in PBI. We emphasize the need to address the observed disparities and better understand the distinctive characteristics and mechanisms underlying PBI outcomes to improve patient care and reduce mortality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
穿透性脑损伤与钝性脑损伤倾向匹配队列临床严重程度和预后的比较分析
创伤性脑损伤(TBI)是一项全球性的健康挑战;然而,穿透性脑损伤(PBI)在循证知识和研究工作中的代表性仍然不足。本研究利用美国国家创伤数据库(NTDB)创伤质量改进计划(TQIP)的数据,对穿透性脑损伤与临床严重程度相匹配的非穿透性或钝性脑损伤的治疗效果进行了比较研究。共有 1765 名 PBI 患者与钝性 TBI 患者按临床严重程度进行了 1:1 的倾向性评分匹配。34.1%的创伤性脑损伤是自己造成的,89.1%的创伤性脑损伤是火器造成的。与严重程度相匹配的创伤性脑损伤患者队列相比,PBI 患者的死亡率明显更高(33.9% 对 14.3%,P < 0.001),而不良预后也更常见。30%的死亡率是由撤消维持生命疗法(WOLST)引起的,PBI患者撤消维持生命疗法的时间更早(中位数为3天 vs. 6天,p < 0.001)。格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)小于11的PBI患者死亡率高于小于7的钝性创伤性脑损伤患者。总之,PBI 患者的死亡率更高,预后更差;三分之一的超额死亡率是由 WOLST 导致的。该研究还对基于 GCS 的传统 TBI 分类是否适用于 PBI 提出了质疑。我们强调有必要解决观察到的差异,并更好地了解 PBI 结果的独特特征和机制,以改善患者护理并降低死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Small Molecule Drug C381 Attenuates Brain Vascular Damage Following Repetitive Mild Traumatic Injury. Clinical Impact of an AI Decision Support System for Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage in CT Scans. Metacognitive Therapy for People Experiencing Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Preliminary Multiple Case-Series Study. Multicenter Study Examining Temporal Trends in Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Over Six Years Using Joinpoint Regression. Resilience and Concussion Recovery in Minority Women: Promoting Health Equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1