Performance of the Hull Salford Cambridge Decision Rule (HSC DR) for early discharge of patients with findings on CT scan of the brain: a CENTER-TBI validation study

Background There is international variation in hospital admission practices for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and injuries on CT scan. Only a small proportion of patients require neurosurgical intervention, while many guidelines recommend routine admission of all patients. We aim to validate the Hull Salford Cambridge Decision Rule (HSC DR) and the Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) criteria to select low-risk patients for discharge from the emergency department. Method A cohort from 18 countries of Glasgow Coma Scale 13–15 patients with injuries on CT imaging was identified from the multicentre Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) Study (conducted from 2014 to 2017) for secondary analysis. A composite outcome measure encompassing need for ongoing hospital admission was used, including seizure activity, death, intubation, neurosurgical intervention and neurological deterioration. We assessed the performance of our previously derived prognostic model, the HSC DR and the BIG criteria at predicting deterioration in this validation cohort. Results Among 1047 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 267 (26%) deteriorated. Our prognostic model achieved a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.84). The HSC DR achieved a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 97% to 100%) and specificity of only 4.7% (95% CI: 3.3% to 6.5%) for deterioration. Using the BIG criteria for discharge from the ED achieved a higher specificity (13.3%, 95% CI: 10.9% to 16.1%) and lower sensitivity (94.6%, 95% CI: 90.5% to 97%), with 12/105 patients recommended for discharge subsequently deteriorating, compared with 0/34 with the HSC DR. Conclusion Our decision rule would have allowed 3.5% of patients to be discharged, none of whom would have deteriorated. Use of the BIG criteria may select patients for discharge who have too high a risk of subsequent deterioration to be used clinically. Further validation and implementation studies are required to support use in clinical practice.

[1]  T. Sheldon,et al.  Development of a Clinical Decision Rule for the Early Safe Discharge of Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Findings on Computed Tomography Brain Scan: A Retrospective Cohort Study , 2019, Journal of neurotrauma.

[2]  N. Selden,et al.  External retrospective validation of Brain Injury Guidelines criteria and modified guidelines for improved care value in the management of patients with low-risk neurotrauma. , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery.

[3]  Hester F. Lingsma,et al.  Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study , 2019, The Lancet Neurology.

[4]  T. Sheldon,et al.  A protocol for the development of a prediction model in mild traumatic brain injury with CT scan abnormality: which patients are safe for discharge? , 2018, Diagnostic and Prognostic Research.

[5]  T. Sheldon,et al.  The Risk of Deterioration in GCS13–15 Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury Identified by Computed Tomography Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2018, Journal of neurotrauma.

[6]  P. Rhee,et al.  Big for small: Validating brain injury guidelines in pediatric traumatic brain injury , 2017, The journal of trauma and acute care surgery.

[7]  D. B. Wall,et al.  Not every trauma patient with a radiographic head injury requires transfer for neurosurgical evaluation: Application of the brain injury guidelines to patients transferred to a level 1 trauma center. , 2017, American journal of surgery.

[8]  John B. Carlin,et al.  Model checking in multiple imputation: an overview and case study , 2017, Emerging Themes in Epidemiology.

[9]  Daan Nieboer,et al.  Epidemiology of traumatic brain injuries in Europe: a cross-sectional analysis. , 2016, The Lancet. Public health.

[10]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[11]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Sample size considerations for the external validation of a multivariable prognostic model: a resampling study , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  S. O’Keeffe A cross-sectional study of doctors', managers' and public representatives' views regarding acceptable level of risk in discharges from the emergency department. , 2015, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[13]  G. Collins,et al.  Effect of Ebola Progression in Liberia , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  P. Rhee,et al.  Prospective validation of the brain injury guidelines: Managing traumatic brain injury without neurosurgical consultation , 2014, The journal of trauma and acute care surgery.

[15]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. , 2014, European heart journal.

[16]  P. Rhee,et al.  The BIG (brain injury guidelines) project: Defining the management of traumatic brain injury by acute care surgeons , 2014, The journal of trauma and acute care surgery.

[17]  E. Hess,et al.  What is an acceptable risk of major adverse cardiac event in chest pain patients soon after discharge from the Emergency Department?: a clinical survey. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[18]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata , 2011 .

[19]  Philip Smith,et al.  Scheduled repeat CT scanning for traumatic brain injury remains important in assessing head injury progression. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[20]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models: A Framework for Traditional and Novel Measures , 2010, Epidemiology.

[21]  M. Kenward,et al.  Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  E. Elkin,et al.  Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  Enrique Rubio,et al.  Reliability of clinical guidelines in the detection of patients at risk following mild head injury: results of a prospective study. , 2004, Journal of neurosurgery.

[25]  George A Wells,et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury , 2001, The Lancet.

[26]  Fiona Lecky,et al.  Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. , 2015, Neurosurgery.

[27]  O. Bouamra,et al.  Predicting outcomes after blunt chest wall trauma : development and external validation of a new prognostic model , 2014 .

[28]  Reston,et al.  INDICATIONS FOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN PATIENTS WITH MINOR HEAD INJURY , 2000 .

[29]  Mj Kuiken,et al.  38TH ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS - ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE MEDICINE , 1994 .