Serum IL-6: a candidate biomarker for intracranial pressure elevation following isolated traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is a serious, life-threatening, secondary event following traumatic brain injury (TBI). In many cases, ICP rises in a delayed fashion, reaching a maximal level 48-96 hours after the initial insult. While pressure catheters can be implanted to monitor ICP, there is no clinically proven method for determining a patient's risk for developing this pathology. METHODS: In the present study, we employed antibody array and Luminex-based screening methods to interrogate the levels of inflammatory cytokines in the serum of healthy volunteers and in severe TBI patients (GCS RESULTS: Consistent with previous reports, we observed sustained increases in IL-6 levels in TBI patients irrespective of their ICP status. However, the group of patients who subsequently experienced ICP >or= 25 mm Hg had significantly higher IL-6 levels within the first 17 hours of injury as compared to the patients whose ICP remained 128 pg/ml correctly identified 85% of isolated TBI patients who subsequently developed elevated ICP, and values between these cut-off values correctly identified 75% of all patients whose ICP remained CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that serum IL-6 can be used for the differential diagnosis of elevated ICP in isolated TBI.

SEVERE HEAD TRAUMA, EMERGENCY TRANSPORT, AND PATIENT OUTCOME

Trauma and severe head injuries are important issues because they are prevalent, because they occur predominantly in the young, and because variations in clinical management may matter. Trauma is the leading cause of death for those under age 40. The focus of this head injury study is to determine if variations in time from the scene of accident to a trauma center hospital makes a difference in patient outcomes.^ A trauma registry is maintained in the Houston-Galveston area and includes all patients admitted to any one of three trauma center hospitals with mild or severe head injuries. A study cohort, derived from the Registry, includes 254 severe head injury cases, for 1980, with a Glasgow Coma Score of 8 or less.^ Multiple influences relate to patient outcomes from severe head injury. Two primary variables and four confounding variables are identified, including time to emergency room, time to intubation, patient age, severity of injury, type of injury and mode of transport to the emergency room. Regression analysis, analysis of variance, and chi-square analysis were the principal statistical methods utilized.^ Analysis indicates that within an urban setting, with a four-hour time span, variations in time to emergency room do not provide any strong influence or predictive value to patient outcome. However, data are suggestive that at longer time periods there is a negative influence on outcomes. Age is influential only when the older group (55-64) is included. Mode of transport (helicopter or ambulance) did not indicate any significant difference in outcome.^ In a multivariate regression model, outcomes are influenced primarily by severity of injury and age which explain 36% (R('2)) of variance. Inclusion of time to emergency room, time to intubation, transport mode and type injury add only 4% (R('2)) additional contribution to explaining variation in patient outcome.^ The research concludes that since the group most at risk to head trauma is the young adult male involved in automobile/motorcycle accidents, more may be gained by modifying driving habits and other preventive measures. Continuous clinical and evaluative research are required to provide updated clinical wisdom in patient management and trauma treatment protocols. A National Institute of Trauma may be required to develop a national public policy and evaluate the many medical, behavioral and social changes required to cope with the country's number 3 killer and the primary killer of young adults.^

Data quality in trauma transfusion studies and the impact of missing data on predicting massive transfusion

Maximizing data quality may be especially difficult in trauma-related clinical research. Strategies are needed to improve data quality and assess the impact of data quality on clinical predictive models. This study had two objectives. The first was to compare missing data between two multi-center trauma transfusion studies: a retrospective study (RS) using medical chart data with minimal data quality review and the PRospective Observational Multi-center Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study with standardized quality assurance. The second objective was to assess the impact of missing data on clinical prediction algorithms by evaluating blood transfusion prediction models using PROMMTT data. RS (2005-06) and PROMMTT (2009-10) investigated trauma patients receiving ≥ 1 unit of red blood cells (RBC) from ten Level I trauma centers. Missing data were compared for 33 variables collected in both studies using mixed effects logistic regression (including random intercepts for study site). Massive transfusion (MT) patients received ≥ 10 RBC units within 24h of admission. Correct classification percentages for three MT prediction models were evaluated using complete case analysis and multiple imputation based on the multivariate normal distribution. A sensitivity analysis for missing data was conducted to estimate the upper and lower bounds of correct classification using assumptions about missing data under best and worst case scenarios. Most variables (17/33=52%) had <1% missing data in RS and PROMMTT. Of the remaining variables, 50% demonstrated less missingness in PROMMTT, 25% had less missingness in RS, and 25% were similar between studies. Missing percentages for MT prediction variables in PROMMTT ranged from 2.2% (heart rate) to 45% (respiratory rate). For variables missing >1%, study site was associated with missingness (all p≤0.021). Survival time predicted missingness for 50% of RS and 60% of PROMMTT variables. MT models complete case proportions ranged from 41% to 88%. Complete case analysis and multiple imputation demonstrated similar correct classification results. Sensitivity analysis upper-lower bound ranges for the three MT models were 59-63%, 36-46%, and 46-58%. Prospective collection of ten-fold more variables with data quality assurance reduced overall missing data. Study site and patient survival were associated with missingness, suggesting that data were not missing completely at random, and complete case analysis may lead to biased results. Evaluating clinical prediction model accuracy may be misleading in the presence of missing data, especially with many predictor variables. The proposed sensitivity analysis estimating correct classification under upper (best case scenario)/lower (worst case scenario) bounds may be more informative than multiple imputation, which provided results similar to complete case analysis.^