Prognostic value of various intracranial pathologies in traumatic brain injury

Review Article

Abstract

Objective

Various intracranial pathologies in traumatic brain injury (TBI) can help to predict patient outcomes. These pathologies can be categorised using the Marshall Classification or the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) dictionary or can be described through traditional descriptive terms such as subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), subdural haemorrhage (SDH), epidural haemorrhage (EDH) etc. The purpose of this study is to assess the prognostic value of AIS scores, the Marshall Classification and various intracranial pathologies in TBI.

Methods

A dataset of 802 TBI patients in the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database was analysed using logistic regression. First, a baseline model was constructed with age, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), pupillary reactivity, cause of injury and presence/absence of extracranial injury as predictors and survival at discharge as the outcome. Subsequently, AIS score, the Marshall Classification and various intracranial pathologies such as haemorrhage, SAH or brain swelling were added in order to assess the relative predictive strength of each variable and also to assess the improvement in the performance of the model.

Results

Various AIS scores or Marshal classes did not appear to significantly affect the outcome. Among traditional descriptive terms, only brain stem injury and brain swelling significantly influenced outcome [odds ratios for survival: 0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.08–0.40) and 0.48 (95% CI; 0.29–0.80), respectively]. Neither haemorrhage nor its subtypes, such as SAH, SDH and EDH, were significantly associated with outcome. Adding AIS scores, the Marshall Classification and various intracranial pathologies to the prognostic models resulted in an almost equal increase in the predictive performance of the baseline model.

Conclusions

In this relatively recent dataset, each of the brain injury classification systems enhanced equally the performance of an early mortality prediction model in traumatic brain injury patients. The significant effect of brain swelling and brain stem injury on the outcome in comparison to injuries such as SAH suggests the need to improve therapeutic approaches to patients who have sustained these injuries.

Keywords

Computed tomography Traumatic brain injury Intracranial haemorrhage Outcome 

References

  1. 1.
    Signorini DF, Andrews PJ, Jones PA, Wardlaw JM, Miller JD. Predicting survival using simple clinical variables: a case study in traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66(1):20–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azian AA, Nurulazman AA, Shuaib L, Mahayidin M, Ariff AR, Naing NN, Abdullah J. Computed tomography of the brain in predicting outcome of traumatic intracranial haemorrhage in Malaysian patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2001;143(7):711–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fearnside MR, Cook RJ, McDougall P, McNeil RJ. The Westmead Head Injury Project outcome in severe head injury. A comparative analysis of pre-hospital, clinical and CT variables. Br J Neurosurg. 1993;7(3):267–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Servadei F, Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Dearden M, Iannotti F, Lapierre F, Maas AJ, Karimi A, Ohman J, Persson L, Stocchetti N, Trojanowski T, Unterberg A. Traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage: demographic and clinical study of 750 patients from the European brain injury consortium survey of head injuries. Neurosurgery. 2002;50(2):261–7. Discussion 267–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Marmarou A, Roberts I, Habbema JD, Maas AI. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5(8):e165. Discussion e165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maas AI, Hukkelhoven CW, Marshall LF, Steyerberg EW. 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):1173–82. Discussion 1173–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, Lu J, Mushkudiani NA, Maas AI, Marmarou A, Steyerberg EW. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):329–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wardlaw JM, Easton VJ, Statham P. Which CT features help predict outcome after head injury? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72(2):188–92. Discussion 151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hukkelhoven CW, Steyerberg EW, Habbema JD, Farace E, Marmarou A, Murray GD, Marshall LF, Maas AI. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and validation of a prognostic score based on admission characteristics. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22(10):1025–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakarieka A, Braakman R, Schakel EH. Clinical significance of the finding of subarachnoid blood on CT scan after head injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1994;129(1–2):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maas AI, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, Dammers R, Lu J, Marmarou A, Mushkudiani NA, McHugh GS, Murray GD. Prognostic value of computerized tomography scan characteristics in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):303–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bahloul M, Chelly H, Ben Hmida M, Ben Hamida C, Ksibi H, Kallel H, Chaari A, Kassis M, Rekik N, Bouaziz M. Prognosis of traumatic head injury in South Tunisia: a multivariate analysis of 437 cases. J Trauma. 2004;57(2):255–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Servadei F, Murray GD, Penny K, Teasdale GM, Dearden M, Iannotti F, Lapierre F, Maas AJ, Karimi A, Ohman J, Persson L, Stocchetti N, Trojanowski T, Unterberg A. The value of the “worst” computed tomographic scan in clinical studies of moderate and severe head injury. European Brain Injury Consortium. Neurosurgery. 2000;46(1):70–5. Discussion 75–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1990 Revision, Update 98 Barrington, USA: Association for the Advancement of Automatic Medicine; 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Abbreviated Injury Scale, 2005, Update 2008 Barrington, USA: Association for the Advancement of Automatic Medicine; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR, Clark MvB, Eisenberg HM, Jane JA, Luerssen TG, Marmarou A, Foulkes MA. A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography. Special Suppl. 1991;75(1s):S14–S20. doi:10.3171/sup.1991.75.1s.0s14.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN), Salford, UK. Home page at: http://www.tarn.ac.uk/. Accessed 13/08/2009.
  18. 18.
    MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators; Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, Edwards P, Komolafe E, Poccock S, Roberts I, Shakur H, Steyerberg E, Yutthakasemsunt S. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ. 2008;336(7641):425–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marmarou A, Lu J, Butcher I, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani NA, Choi S, Maas AI. Prognostic value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and pupil reactivity in traumatic brain injury assessed pre-hospital and on enrollment: an IMPACT analysis. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):270–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maas AI, Marmarou A, Murray GD, Teasdale SG, Steyerberg EW. Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):232–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lesko MM, Woodford M, White L, O’Brien SJ, Childs C, Lecky FE. Using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes to classify computed tomography (CT) features in the Marshall System. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:72. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika. 1991;78(3):691–2. doi:10.1093/biomet/78.3.691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Braakman R, Cohadon F, Dearden M, Iannotti F, Karimi A, Lapierre F, Maas A, Ohman J, Persson L, Servadei F, Stocchetti N, Trojanowski T, Unterberg A. The European Brain Injury Consortium survey of head injuries. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1999;141(3):223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouamra O, Wrotchford A, Hollis S, Vail A, Woodford M, Lecky F. A new approach to outcome prediction in trauma: a comparison with the TRISS model. J Trauma. 2006;61(3):701–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma. 1987;27(4):370–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Healey C, Osler TM, Rogers FB, Healey MA, Glance LG, Kilgo PD, Shackford SR, Meredith JW. Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma. 2003;54(4):671–8. Discussion 678–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davis EG, MacKenzie EJ, Sacco WJ, Bain LW Jr, Buckman RF Jr, Champion HR, Lees PS. A new “TRISS-like” probability of survival model for intubated trauma patients. J Trauma. 2003;55(1):53–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel HC, Bouamra O, Woodford M, King AT, Yates DW, Lecky FE; Trauma Audit and Research Network. Trends in head injury outcome from 1989 to 2003 and the effect of neurosurgical care: an observational study. Lancet. 2005;366(9496):1538–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. M. Lesko
    • 1
  • O. Bouamra
    • 1
  • S. O’Brien
    • 2
  • F. Lecky
    • 1
  1. 1.Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN), Salford Royal NHS Foundation TrustUniversity of ManchesterSalfordUK
  2. 2.Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, Salford Royal NHS Foundation TrustUniversity of ManchesterSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations