Neurocritical care
-
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is clearly recognized as a patient-important outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patient-reported outcomes are therefore often used and supposed to be directly reported by the patients without interpretation of their responses by a physician or anyone else. However, patients with TBI are often unable to self-report because of physical and/or cognitive impairments. Thus, proxy-reported measures, e.g., family members, are often used on the patient's behalf. Yet, many studies have reported that proxy and patient ratings differ and are noncomparable. However, most studies usually do not account for other potential confounding factors that may be associated with HRQoL. In addition, patients and proxies can interpret some items of the patient-reported outcomes differently. As a result, item responses may not only reflect patients' HRQoL but also the respondent's (patient or proxy) own perception of the items. This phenomenon, called differential item functioning (DIF), can lead to substantial differences between patient-reported and proxy-reported measures and compromise their comparability, leading to highly biased HRQoL estimates. Using data from the prospective multicenter continuous hyperosmolar therapy in traumatic brain-injured patients study (240 patients with HRQoL measured with the Short Form-36 (SF-36)), we assessed the comparability of patients' and proxies' reports by evaluating the extent to which items perception differs (i.e., DIF) between patients and proxies after controlling for potential confounders. ⋯ Patients with moderate-to-severe TBI and proxies seem to have different perceptions of the items measuring role limitations due to physical or emotional problems, questioning the comparability of patient and proxy data. Therefore, aggregating proxy and patient responses may bias HRQoL estimates and alter medical decision-making based on these patient-important outcomes.
-
Multicenter Study
Adherence to Established Blood Pressure Targets and Associated Complications in Patients Presenting with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage.
Conflicting evidence exists surrounding systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The 2022 American Heart Association and American Stroke Association guidelines recommend targeting a SBP of 140 mm Hg while maintaining the range of 130-150 mm Hg. The current practice at our health system is to titrate antihypertensives to a SBP goal of < 160 mm Hg, which aligns with previous recommendations. We hypothesized that the prior lack of guidance to a specific SBP target range predisposed patients to hypotension leading to an increased risk of brain and renal adverse events. ⋯ In individuals with nontraumatic/nonaneurysmal ICH, SBP measurements were observed to be < 140 mm Hg for > 50% of the initial 48 h following admission. Hypotension and relative SBP reduction > 20% were also independent predictors of renal adverse events. SBP reduction > 20% was also an independent predictor of brain ischemia. These data indicate that intensive SBP reduction following ICH predispose patients to secondary organ injury that may impact long-term outcomes. Our data suggest that a more modest lowering of the SBP within 48 h, as recommended in the most recent guidelines, may minimize the risk of further adverse events.
-
Predicting functional outcome in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) strongly influences end-of-life decisions and information for surrogate decision makers. Despite well-validated prognostic models, clinicians most often rely on their subjective perception of prognosis. In this study, we aimed to compare physicians' predictions with the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) prognostic model for predicting an unfavorable functional outcome at 6 months after moderate or severe TBI. ⋯ Predictions made by physicians for functional outcome were overall moderately accurate, and no statistical difference was found with the IMPACT models, possibly due to a lack of power. The significant variability between physician assessments suggests prediction could be improved through peer reviewing, with the support of the IMPACT models, to provide a realistic expectation of outcome to families and guide discussions about end-of-life decisions.