RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation of the GCS-Pupil scale in Traumatic Brain Injury Incremental prognostic performance of pupillary reactivity with GCS in the prospective observational cohorts CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.06.05.24308424
DO 10.1101/2024.06.05.24308424
A1 Vreeburg, Rick J.G.
A1 van Leeuwen, Florian D.
A1 Manley, Geoffrey T.
A1 Yue, John K.
A1 Brennan, Paul M.
A1 Sun, Xiaoying
A1 Jain, Sonia
A1 van Essen, Thomas A.
A1 Peul, Wilco C.
A1 Maas, Andrew I.R.
A1 Menon, David K.
A1 Steyerberg, Ewout W.
A1 the CENTER-TBI TBI TRACK-TBI participants and investigators and the members of the clinical working group of the NIH-NINDS initiative on classification and nomenclature of TBI
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/10/2024.06.05.24308424.abstract
AB Objective To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity as captured in the GCS-Pupils score (GCS-P) or added as separate variable to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in traumatic brain injury (TBI).Methods We analyzed patients enrolled between 2014 and 2018 in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI, n=3521) and the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI, n=1439) cohorts. We used logistic regression to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P versus GCS according to Nagelkerke’s R2. Endpoints were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 months after injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability.Results GCS as a linear score had a R2 of 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-30) and 30% (95%CI 17-43) for mortality and 29% (95%CI 25-34) and 38% (95%CI 29-47) for unfavorable outcome in CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI respectively. In the meta-analysis, pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the R2 by an absolute value of 6% and 2% for mortality and unfavorable outcome (95%CI 4.0-7.7 and 1.2-3.0, respectively), with half the improvement captured in the GCS-P score (3%, 95%CI 2.1-3.3 and 1%, 95%CI 1-1.7, respectively).Conclusions GCS-P has a stronger association with outcome after TBI than the GCS alone. However, for prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate scores is preferable.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementCENTER-TBI was supported by the European Union 7th Framework Programme for Research (grant no. 602150; A.I.R.M.), Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), and OneMind (United States). TRACK-TBI was funded by the US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (grant U01 NS1365885 [Dr Manley]) and supported by the US Department of Defense (grant W81XWH-14-2-0176 [Dr Manley]). Patient travel and stipend expenses were supported by One Mind (Staglin Family and General Peter Chiarelli). Dr. Yue reported grants from the Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation and Bagan Family Foundation Research Fellowship (award no. A139203, to the University of California, San Francisco) outside the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported grants from the European Union 7th Framework Programme for Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Peul reported grants from European Committee Grant CENTER-TBI and grants from the Netherlands Brain Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. van Essen reported grants from the European Union 7th Framework Programme for Research or CENTER-TBI and Hersenstichting Nederland (Dutch Brain Foundation) for Net-QuRe and the Niels Stensen Fellowship during the conduct of the study. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The CENTER-TBI study (EC grant 602150) has been conducted in accordance with all relevant laws of the EU if directly applicable or of direct effect and all relevant laws of the country where the Recruiting sites were located, including but not limited to, the relevant privacy and data protection laws and regulations (the Privacy Law), the relevant laws and regulations on the use of human materials, and all relevant guidance relating to clinical studies from time to time in force including, but not limited to, the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) (ICH GCP) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki entitled Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Informed Consent by the patients and/or the legal representative/next of kin was obtained, accordingly to the local legislations, for all patients recruited in the Core Dataset of CENTER-TBI and documented in the e-CRF. Ethical approval was obtained for each recruiting sites. The list of sites, Ethical Committees, approval numbers and approval dates can be found on the CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI websites.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.