Conventional management of patients with neurotrauma frequently consists of routine, repeat head CT at preordained intervals with ICU-level monitoring, regardless of injury severity. The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) are a classification tool for stratifying patients into injury severity and risk-of-progression categories based on presenting clinical and radiographic findings. In the present study, the authors aimed to validate BIG criteria at a single level 1 trauma center.
Patients were classified according to BIG criteria and evaluated for subsequent radiographic progression or development of neurological decline. A 2-year retrospective cohort review of consecutive patients with neurotrauma (n = 590) was undertaken. The authors then developed a modified BIG algorithm for use at their institution and followed its implementation prospectively over 555 consecutive patients.
In the retrospective analysis, no patient in the BIG 1 category (n = 88, 14.9%) demonstrated progression or neurological decline, and 7.5% of BIG 2 patients (n = 107, 18.1%) demonstrated mild radiographic progression without any decline or need for additional neurosurgical or medical intervention, whereas 15.4% of BIG 3 patients (n = 395, 66.9%) underwent additional neurosurgical procedures. In the prospective analysis, no BIG 1 (n = 105, 18.9%) or BIG 2 (n = 48, 8.6%) patients demonstrated a clinical decline or required any further neurosurgical intervention. By contrast, 12.9% of BIG 3 patients (n = 402, 72%) required immediate neurosurgical intervention, and a further 2.0% required delayed intervention based on clinical and/or radiographic evidence of injury progression.
Application of the BIG criteria in a single large level 1 trauma center reliably sorted patients into appropriate risk categories that accurately guided ongoing management.
Correspondence Justin S. Cetas: Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. email@example.com.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online November 8, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.6.JNS19584.Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.
AlmenawerSABogzaIYarascavitchBSneNFarrokhyarFMurtyN: The value of scheduled repeat cranial computed tomography after mild head injury: single-center series and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery72:56–642013
AlmenawerSA, BogzaI, YarascavitchB, SneN, FarrokhyarF, MurtyN, : The value of scheduled repeat cranial computed tomography after mild head injury: single-center series and meta-analysis. 72:56–64, 2013)| false
JosephBFrieseRSSadounMAzizHKulvatunyouNPanditV: The BIG (brain injury guidelines) project: defining the management of traumatic brain injury by acute care surgeons. J Trauma Acute Care Surg76:965–9692014
JosephB, FrieseRS, SadounM, AzizH, KulvatunyouN, PanditV, : The BIG (brain injury guidelines) project: defining the management of traumatic brain injury by acute care surgeons. 76:965–969, 2014)| false
Smith-BindmanRLipsonJMarcusRKimKPMaheshMGouldR: Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med169:2078–20862009
Smith-BindmanR, LipsonJ, MarcusR, KimKP, MaheshM, GouldR, : Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. 169:2078–2086, 2009)| false