To Örebro University

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown variations in management routines for children with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Sweden. It is unknown if this management has changed after the publication of the Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee guidelines in 2016 (SNC16). Also, knowledge of current practice routines may guide development of an efficient implementation strategy for the guidelines. The aim of this study is therefore to describe current management routines in paediatric TBI on a hospital/organizational level in Sweden. Secondary aims are to analyse differences in management over time, to assess the current dissemination status of the SNC16 guideline and to analyse possible variations between hospitals.

METHODS: This is a sequential, cross-sectional, structured survey in five sections, covering initial management routines for paediatric TBI in Sweden. Respondents, with profound knowledge of local management routines and recommendations, were identified for all Swedish hospitals with an emergency department managing children (age 0-17 year) via phone/mail before distribution of the survey. Responses were collected via an on-line survey system during June 2020-March 2021. Data are presented as descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using Fisher exact test, when applicable.

RESULTS: 71 of the 76 identified hospitals managed patients with TBI of all ages and 66 responded (response rate 93%). 56 of these managed children and were selected for further analysis. 76% (42/55) of hospitals have an established guideline to aid in clinical decision making. Children with TBI are predominately managed by inexperienced doctors (84%; 47/56), primarily from non-paediatric specialities (75%; 42/56). Most hospitals (75%; 42/56) have the possibility to admit and observe children with TBI of varying degrees and almost all centres have complete access to neuroradiology (96%; 54/56). In larger hospitals, it was more common for nurses to discharge patients without doctor assessment when compared to smaller hospitals (6/9 vs. 9/47; p < 0.001). Presence of established guidelines (14/51 vs. 42/55; p < 0.001) and written observation routines (16/51 vs. 29/42; p < 0.001) in hospitals have increased significantly since 2006.

CONCLUSIONS: TBI management routines for children in Sweden still vary, with some differences occurring over time. Use of established guidelines, written observation routines and information for patients/guardians have all improved. These results form a baseline for current management and may also aid in guideline implementation.

Background: Head trauma in children is a common cause for a visit to the A&E. Among the many children it is important to identify those at risk for developing a clinical important head injury (CITBI). The most important way of identifying the children at risk is to perform a CT scan of the head. There are reports indicating an induction of 1 cancer in children on 1000 – 5000 CT examinations. It is thus important to minimise the use of CT. In 2010 Osmond and co-workers introduced the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head injury: the CATCH rule (CATCH-R), with the aim of identifying those at most risk and to reduce the use of CT. The aim of this study is to validate the CATCH-R, using a large cohort of children.

Material Methods: The study is a cohort study based on the data set from: ‘‘Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-important brain injuries after head trauma: a prospective cohort study’’(Kuppermanns et al 2009). It includes data from more than 43000 children. The cohort was identified using the basal criteria in the CATCH-R, i.e. children with a GCS of 13 – 15. The CATCH-R was then used to identify children who should perform a CT.

Results: We identified 37277 children with a GCS of 13 – 15 of which 7774 fulfilled the criteria for MHI according to the CATCH-R. Of these 2699 had one or more risk factors, i.e. should perform a CT scan. In the CT group 117 children had a CITBI and in the non-CT group (n=5075) we identified 36 children with CITBI. At the division MHI and no-MHI according to the CATCH-R the NPV is 99.2 % (CI 99.1 – 99.2 %), and specificity 79.3% (CI 78.9 – 79.7). At the division MHI with risk factor/s and MHI without risk factor/s the NPV is 99.3% (CI 99.1 – 99.5 %), and specificity 66.1 % (CI 65.0 – 67.2 %).

Conclusion: It seems that using the CATCH-R the risk of not detecting a child with a CITBI is very small.

OBJECT: In this paper we tested the hypothesis if patients with severe traumatic brain injury and presence of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele are more prone to undergo the surgical procedure decompressive hemicraniectomy (DC) in order to bring the intracranial pressure (ICP) under control.

METHODS: In this prospective consecutive study patients with sTBI were enrolled (n=48). Inclusion criteria were arrival to our level one trauma university hospital within 24h after trauma, patient age between 15 and 70years, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score ≤8 at the time of intubation and sedation, an initial cerebral perfusion pressure >10mmHg. Venous blood was sampled for APOE genotype determination. Clinical outcome at 6months after injury was assessed with the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE). All surgical procedures needed for each patient were registered.

RESULTS: Patients with the APOE ε4 allele were significantly overrepresented in the DC group. In the APOE ε4+DC group, ICPmax and ICPmean during the first 36h were significantly higher and GOSE was significantly worse at 6months.

CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients with the APOE ε4 allele are predisposed for the need of DC more often than patients without the APOE ε4 allele. Thus, it seems to be of importance to consider the APOE genotype in patients suffering severe traumatic brain injury in order to forecast the need for a more exquisite intensive care.