Critical Evaluation of the Lund Concept for Treatment of Severe Traumatic Head Injury, 25 Years after Its Introduction

It is unclear whether decompressive craniectomy improves the functional outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury and refractory raised intracranial pressure. From December 2002 through April 2010, we randomly assigned 155 adults with severe diffuse traumatic brain injury and intracranial hypertension that was refractory to first-tier therapies to undergo either bifrontotemporoparietal decompressive craniectomy or standard care. The original primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome (a composite of death, vegetative state, or severe disability), as evaluated on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale 6 months after the injury. The final primary outcome was the score on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at 6 months. Patients in the craniectomy group, as compared with those in the standard-care group, had less time with intracranial pressures above the treatment threshold (P<0.001), fewer interventions for increased intracranial pressure (P<0.02 for all comparisons), and fewer days in the intensive care unit (ICU) (P<0.001). However, patients undergoing craniectomy had worse scores on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale than those receiving standard care (odds ratio for a worse score in the craniectomy group, 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.24; P=0.03) and a greater risk of an unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 4.26; P=0.02). Rates of death at 6 months were similar in the craniectomy group (19%) and the standard-care group (18%). In adults with severe diffuse traumatic brain injury and refractory intracranial hypertension, early bifrontotemporoparietal decompressive craniectomy decreased intracranial pressure and the length of stay in the ICU but was associated with more unfavorable outcomes. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; DECRA Australian Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN012605000009617.).

Background The effect of decompressive craniectomy on clinical outcomes in patients with refractory traumatic intracranial hypertension remains unclear. Methods From 2004 through 2014, we randomly assigned 408 patients, 10 to 65 years of age, with traumatic brain injury and refractory elevated intracranial pressure (>25 mm Hg) to undergo decompressive craniectomy or receive ongoing medical care. The primary outcome was the rating on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) (an 8-point scale, ranging from death to "upper good recovery" [no injury-related problems]) at 6 months. The primary-outcome measure was analyzed with an ordinal method based on the proportional-odds model. If the model was rejected, that would indicate a significant difference in the GOS-E distribution, and results would be reported descriptively. Results The GOS-E distribution differed between the two groups (P<0.001). The proportional-odds assumption was rejected, and therefore results are reported descriptively. At 6 months, the GOS-E distributions were as follows: death, 26.9% among 201 patients in the surgical group versus 48.9% among 188 patients in the medical group; vegetative state, 8.5% versus 2.1%; lower severe disability (dependent on others for care), 21.9% versus 14.4%; upper severe disability (independent at home), 15.4% versus 8.0%; moderate disability, 23.4% versus 19.7%; and good recovery, 4.0% versus 6.9%. At 12 months, the GOS-E distributions were as follows: death, 30.4% among 194 surgical patients versus 52.0% among 179 medical patients; vegetative state, 6.2% versus 1.7%; lower severe disability, 18.0% versus 14.0%; upper severe disability, 13.4% versus 3.9%; moderate disability, 22.2% versus 20.1%; and good recovery, 9.8% versus 8.4%. Surgical patients had fewer hours than medical patients with intracranial pressure above 25 mm Hg after randomization (median, 5.0 vs. 17.0 hours; P<0.001) but had a higher rate of adverse events (16.3% vs. 9.2%, P=0.03). Conclusions At 6 months, decompressive craniectomy in patients with traumatic brain injury and refractory intracranial hypertension resulted in lower mortality and higher rates of vegetative state, lower severe disability, and upper severe disability than medical care. The rates of moderate disability and good recovery were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and others; RESCUEicp Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN66202560 .).

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are common in intensive care unit, trauma, and surgical patients. However, the hematocrit that should be maintained in any particular patient because the risks of further transfusion of RBC outweigh the benefits remains unclear. A systematic review of the literature to determine the association between red blood cell transfusion, and morbidity and mortality in high-risk hospitalized patients. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and citation review of relevant primary and review articles. Cohort studies that assessed the independent effect of RBC transfusion on patient outcomes. From 571 articles screened, 45 met inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. Forty-five studies including 272,596 were identified (the outcomes from one study were reported in four separate publications). The outcome measures were mortality, infections, multiorgan dysfunction syndrome, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The overall risks vs. benefits of RBC transfusion on patient outcome in each study was classified as (i) risks outweigh benefits, (ii) neutral risk, and (iii) benefits outweigh risks. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for each outcome measure was recorded if available. The pooled odds ratios were determined using meta-analytic techniques. Forty-five observational studies with a median of 687 patients/study (range, 63-78,974) were analyzed. In 42 of the 45 studies the risks of RBC transfusion outweighed the benefits; the risk was neutral in two studies with the benefits outweighing the risks in a subgroup of a single study (elderly patients with an acute myocardial infarction and a hematocrit <30%). Seventeen of 18 studies, demonstrated that RBC transfusions were an independent predictor of death; the pooled odds ratio (12 studies) was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-1.9). Twenty-two studies examined the association between RBC transfusion and nosocomial infection; in all these studies blood transfusion was an independent risk factor for infection. The pooled odds ratio (nine studies) for developing an infectious complication was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.2). RBC transfusions similarly increased the risk of developing multi-organ dysfunction syndrome (three studies) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (six studies). The pooled odds ratio for developing acute respiratory distress syndrome was 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.3). Despite the inherent limitations in the analysis of cohort studies, our analysis suggests that in adult, intensive care unit, trauma, and surgical patients, RBC transfusions are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and therefore, current transfusion practices may require reevaluation. The risks and benefits of RBC transfusion should be assessed in every patient before transfusion.