Perfusion Abnormalities are Frequently Detected by Early CT Perfusion and Predict Unfavourable Outcome Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), early CT perfusion (CTP) provides additional information beyond the non-contrast CT (NCCT) and may alter clinical management. We hypothesized that this information may prognosticate functional outcome.
Five-year prospective observational study was performed in a level-1 trauma centre on consecutive severe TBI patients. CTP (obtained in conjunction with first routine NCCT) was interpreted as: abnormal, area of altered perfusion more extensive than on NCCT, and the presence of ischaemia. Six months Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended of four or less was considered an unfavourable outcome. Logistic regression analysis of CTP findings and core variables [preintubation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Rotterdam score, base deficit, age] was conducted using Bayesian model averaging to identify the best predicting model for unfavourable outcome.
Fifty patients were investigated with CTP (one excluded for the absence of TBI) [male: 80%, median age: 35 (23–55), prehospital intubation: 7 (14.2%); median GCS: 5 (3–7); median injury severity score: 29 (20–36); median head and neck abbreviated injury scale: 4 (4–5); median days in ICU: 10 (5–15)]. Thirty (50.8%) patients had an unfavourable outcome. GCS was a moderate predictor of unfavourable outcome (AUC = 0.74), while CTP variables showed greater predictive ability (AUC for abnormal CTP = 0.92; AUC for area of altered perfusion more extensive than NCCT = 0.83; AUC for the presence of ischaemia = 0.81).
Following severe TBI, CTP performed at the time of the first follow-up NCCT, is a non-invasive and extremely valuable tool for early outcome prediction. The potential impact on management and its cost effectiveness deserves to be evaluated in large-scale studies.
Level of evidence III
KeywordsTraumatic Brain Injury Glasgow Coma Scale Injury Severity Score Unfavourable Outcome Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
CB contributed to the study design, writing, and literature search; SC contributed to the data collection and interpretation; TE contributed to the statistical analysis; AB contributed to the data interpretation; DP contributed to functional outcome data acquisition; MP contributed to the study design, writing, and critical revision; and ZB contributed to the study design, writing, and critical revision.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 10.Maas AI, Hukkelhoven CW, Marshall LF et al (2005) Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors. Neurosurgery 57:1173–1183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar