External validation of the NeuroImaging Radiological Interpretation System and Helsinki computed tomography score for mortality prediction in patients with traumatic brain injury treated in the intensive care unit: a Finnish intensive care consortium study.
Computed tomography
Intensive care
Trauma surgery
Traumatic brain injury
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
14
06
2022
accepted:
20
08
2022
pubmed:
2
9
2022
medline:
1
10
2022
entrez:
1
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Admission computed tomography (CT) scoring systems can be used to objectively quantify the severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and aid in outcome prediction. We aimed to externally validate the NeuroImaging Radiological Interpretation System (NIRIS) and the Helsinki CT score. In addition, we compared the prognostic performance of the NIRIS and the Helsinki CT score to the Marshall CT classification and to a clinical model. We conducted a retrospective multicenter observational study using the Finnish Intensive Care Consortium database. We included adult TBI patients admitted in four university hospital ICUs during 2003-2013. We analyzed the CT scans using the NIRIS and the Helsinki CT score and compared the results to 6-month mortality as the primary outcome. In addition, we created a clinical model (age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, presence of severe comorbidity) and combined clinical and CT models to see the added predictive impact of radiological data to conventional clinical information. We measured model performance using area under curve (AUC), Nagelkerke's R A total of 3031 patients were included in the analysis. The 6-month mortality was 710 patients (23.4%). Of the CT models, the Helsinki CT displayed best discrimination (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.70 for NIRIS) and explanatory variation (Nagelkerke's R In patients with TBI treated in the ICU, the Helsinki CT score outperformed the NIRIS for 6-month mortality prediction. In isolation, CT models offered only moderate accuracy for outcome prediction and clinical variables outweighing the CT-based predictors in terms of predictive performance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Admission computed tomography (CT) scoring systems can be used to objectively quantify the severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and aid in outcome prediction. We aimed to externally validate the NeuroImaging Radiological Interpretation System (NIRIS) and the Helsinki CT score. In addition, we compared the prognostic performance of the NIRIS and the Helsinki CT score to the Marshall CT classification and to a clinical model.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective multicenter observational study using the Finnish Intensive Care Consortium database. We included adult TBI patients admitted in four university hospital ICUs during 2003-2013. We analyzed the CT scans using the NIRIS and the Helsinki CT score and compared the results to 6-month mortality as the primary outcome. In addition, we created a clinical model (age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, presence of severe comorbidity) and combined clinical and CT models to see the added predictive impact of radiological data to conventional clinical information. We measured model performance using area under curve (AUC), Nagelkerke's R
RESULTS
A total of 3031 patients were included in the analysis. The 6-month mortality was 710 patients (23.4%). Of the CT models, the Helsinki CT displayed best discrimination (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.70 for NIRIS) and explanatory variation (Nagelkerke's R
CONCLUSION
In patients with TBI treated in the ICU, the Helsinki CT score outperformed the NIRIS for 6-month mortality prediction. In isolation, CT models offered only moderate accuracy for outcome prediction and clinical variables outweighing the CT-based predictors in terms of predictive performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36050580
doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05353-0
pii: 10.1007/s00701-022-05353-0
pmc: PMC9519640
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2709-2717Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
World Neurosurg. 2017 May;101:528-533
pubmed: 28249827
Stat Med. 2012 Jan 30;31(2):101-13
pubmed: 22147389
Stat Med. 2008 Jan 30;27(2):157-72; discussion 207-12
pubmed: 17569110
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Sep 15;176(6):473-81
pubmed: 22875755
NeuroRehabilitation. 2007;22(5):341-53
pubmed: 18162698
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015 Nov;88(8):1069-75
pubmed: 25702173
Neurotrauma Rep. 2022 Apr 14;3(1):168-177
pubmed: 35558729
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012 Oct;56(9):1114-22
pubmed: 22384799
Nat Rev Neurol. 2013 Apr;9(4):231-6
pubmed: 23443846
Crit Care. 2014 Apr 03;18(2):R60
pubmed: 24708781
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021 Jul 17;29(1):94
pubmed: 34274009
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019 Dec;161(12):2467-2478
pubmed: 31659439
J Neurotrauma. 2018 Nov 15;35(22):2665-2672
pubmed: 29665763
Neurosurgery. 2014 Dec;75(6):632-46; discussion 646-7
pubmed: 25181434
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Aug;7(8):1355-64
pubmed: 22679181
J Neurotrauma. 2010 Jan;27(1):51-64
pubmed: 19698072
Crit Care Med. 1997 Dec;25(12):2001-8
pubmed: 9403750
Neurosurgery. 2005 Dec;57(6):1173-82; discussion 1173-82
pubmed: 16331165
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019 Jun 7;:1-8
pubmed: 31174193
PLoS Med. 2017 Aug 3;14(8):e1002368
pubmed: 28771476
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2019 Sep/Oct;43(5):690-696
pubmed: 31490891
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Apr;60(4):362-9
pubmed: 8774396