Abstract

BackgroundThe current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) into “mild”, “moderate”, or “severe” does not adequately account for the patient heterogeneity that still exists within each of these categories. The objective of this study was to identify “sub-groups” of mild TBI (mTBI) patients based on data available at the time of the initial post-TBI patient evaluation and to determine if the sub-grouping correlates with patient outcomes at 90 and 180 days post-TBI.MethodsData from patients in the TRACK-TBI Pilot dataset who had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 to 15 at arrival to the Emergency Department and a closed head injury were included. Considering 53 clinical variables that are typically available during the initial evaluation of the patient with mild TBI, sparse heirarchial clustering with cluster quality assessment was used to identify the optimal number of patient sub-groups. Patient sub-groups were then compared for ten outcomes measured at 90 or 180 days post-TBI.ResultsAmongst the 485 patients with mTBI, optimal clustering was based on the inclusion of 12 clinical variables that divided the patients into 5 mild TBI sub-groups. Clinical variables driving the sub-clustering included: gender, employment status, marital status, TBI due to falling, brain CT scan result, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, administration of IV fluids in the Emergency Department, alcohol use, tobacco use, history of neurologic disease, and history of psychiatric disease. These 5 mild TBI sub-groups differed in their 90 day and 180 day outcomes within several domains including global outcomes, persistence of TBI-related symptoms, and neuropsychological impairment.ConclusionsSub-groups of patients with mTBI can be identified according to clinical variables that are relatively easy to obtain at the time of initial patient evaluation. A patient’s sub-group assignment is associated with multidimensional patient outcomes at 90 and 180 days. These findings support the notion that there are clinically meaningful subgroups of patients amongst those currently classified as having mTBI.

Highlights

  • Sub-groups of patients with mild TBI (mTBI) can be identified according to clinical variables that are relatively easy to obtain at the time of initial patient evaluation

  • A patient’s sub-group assignment is associated with multidimensional patient outcomes at 90 and 180 days. These findings support the notion that there are clinically meaningful subgroups of patients amongst those currently classified as having mTBI

  • The current structure for classifying patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes three main sub-groups defined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score: mild, moderate, and severe. [1,2] Classifying TBI into these three subgroups has substantial limitations: within each of the three sub-groups there exists a large amount of heterogeneity in patient and injury characteristics and wide variability in post-TBI patient outcomes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The current structure for classifying patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes three main sub-groups defined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score: mild, moderate, and severe. [1,2] Classifying TBI into these three subgroups has substantial limitations: within each of the three sub-groups there exists a large amount of heterogeneity in patient and injury characteristics and wide variability in post-TBI patient outcomes. The current structure for classifying patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes three main sub-groups defined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score: mild, moderate, and severe. A patient who had no loss of consciousness, no amnesia, and a GCS score of 15 but had a few minutes of blurred vision and nausea following the head injury is considered to have had a mTBI. Despite these two patients both being classified as having had “mTBI”, one might expect that the severity and outcomes associated with their injuries may be different. The objective of this study was to identify “sub-groups” of mild TBI (mTBI) patients based on data available at the time of the initial post-TBI patient evaluation and to determine if the sub-grouping correlates with patient outcomes at 90 and 180 days postTBI

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call