Modeling the Influence of Age on Neurological Outcome and Quality of Life One Year after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Prospective Multi-Center Cohort Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2019
Modeling the Influence of Age on Neurological Outcome and Quality of Life One Year after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Prospective Multi-Center Cohort Study
After traumatic brain injury (TBI), the relationship between age and outcome at 1 year, including quality of life, has been poorly explored. The aim of our study was to describe this relationship in a cohort of TBI patients in a regional trauma system. Consecutive TBI patients with severe lesions on initial brain computed tomography (CT) scan were included from July 2014 to July 2016 in two French level-1 trauma centers. The primary outcome was the mortality at 1 year and secondary outcomes were Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) and quality of life using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). The relationship between age and outcome was modeled using the generalized linear model (GLM).
Within the study period, 427 patients with TBI and type 3 Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) lesions were included. Finally, 380 patients were assessed for mortality. Ninety-six (25%) patients died at 1 year. The detailed neurological status was available for 317 patients. One year after the trauma, 141 (44%) patients had a favorable outcome (GOS-E 7 and 8), whereas 53 (17%) patients had a moderate disability (GOS-E 5–6), 27 (9%) patients had a severe disability or were in a vegetative state (GOS-E 2–4), and 96 (30%) patients had died (GOS-E 1). After 70 years of age, a dramatic increase in the odds of death and poor neurological outcome was found using GLM. No difference according to age was found for the quality of life. After TBI, the mortality at 1 year dramatically increased with age after 70 years. For elderly survivors, impairment of quality of life was not different from younger patients.
PeetersW., van den BrandeR., PolinderS., BrazinovaA., SteyerbergE.W., LingsmaH.F., and MaasA.I. (2015). Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Europe. Acta Neurochir. (Wien) 157, 1683–1696.
3.
GardnerR.C., BurkeJ.F., NettiksimmonsJ., KaupA., BarnesD.E., and YaffeK. (2014). Dementia risk after traumatic brain injury vs nonbrain trauma: the role of age and severity. JAMA Neurol. 71, 1490–1497.
4.
CollaboratorsM.C.T., PerelP., ArangoM., ClaytonT., EdwardsP., KomolafeE., PoccockS., RobertsI., ShakurH., SteyerbergE., and YutthakasemsuntS. (2008). Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ, 336, 425–429.
5.
SteyerbergE.W., MushkudianiN., PerelP., ButcherI., LuJ., McHughG.S., MurrayG.D., MarmarouA., RobertsI., HabbemaJ.D., and MaasA.I. (2008). Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 5, e165; discussion. e165.
6.
MushkudianiN.A., EngelD.C., SteyerbergE.W., ButcherI., LuJ., MarmarouA., SliekerF., McHughG.S., MurrayG.D., and MaasA.I. (2007). Prognostic value of demographic characteristics in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J. Neurotrauma, 24, 259–269.
7.
RoozenbeekB., LingsmaH.F., LeckyF.E., LuJ., WeirJ., ButcherI., McHughG.S., MurrayG.D., PerelP., MaasA.I., SteyerbergE.W., and International Mission on Prognosis Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) Study Group; Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) Trial Collaborators; Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). (2012). Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models. Crit. Care Med. 40, 1609–1617.
8.
HanJ., KingN.K., NeilsonS.J., GandhiM.P., and NgI. (2014). External validation of the CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models in severe traumatic brain injury. J. Neurotrauma, 31, 1146–1152.
9.
HallerC.S., DelhumeauC., De PrettoM., SchumacherR., PielmaierL., RebetezM.M., HallerG., and WalderB. (2017). Trajectory of disability and quality-of-life in non-geriatric and geriatric survivors after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 31, 319–328.
10.
SchumacherR., MuriR.M., and WalderB. (2017). Integrated health care management of moderate to severe tbi in older patients—a narrative review. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 17, 92.
11.
StocchettiN., and ZanierE.R. (2016). Chronic impact of traumatic brain injury on outcome and quality of life: a narrative review. Crit. Care, 20, 148.
12.
CarterE.L., HutchinsonP.J., KoliasA.G., and MenonD.K. (2016). Predicting the outcome for individual patients with traumatic brain injury: a case-based review. Br. J. Neurosurg. 30, 227–232.
13.
BouzatP., AgeronF.X., BrunJ., LevratA., BerthetM., RancurelE., ThouretJ.M., ThonyF., ArvieuxC., PayenJ.F., and TRENAU group. (2015). A regional trauma system to optimize the pre-hospital triage of trauma patients. Crit. Care, 19, 111.
14.
GaussT., BalandraudP., FrandonJ., AbbaJ., AgeronF.X., AlbaladejoP., ArvieuxC., BarboisS., BijokB., BobbiaX., CharbitJ., CookF., DavidJ.S., MauriceG.S., DuranteauJ., GarrigueD., GayE., GeeraertsT., GhelfiJ., HamadaS., HarroisA., KobeiterH., LeoneM., LevratA., MirekS., NadjiA., Paugam-BurtzC., PayenJ.F., PerbetS., PirracchioR., PlenierI., PottecherJ., RigalS., RiouB., SavaryD., SecheresseT., TazarourteK., ThonyF., TonettiJ., TresalletC., WeyP.F., PicardJ., BouzatP., and Groupe d'intérêt en traumatologie grave (GITE). (2018). Strategic proposal for a national trauma system in France. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 38, 121–130.
15.
HuangY.H., DengY.H., LeeT.C., and ChenW.F. (2012). Rotterdam computed tomography score as a prognosticator in head-injured patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy. Neurosurgery, 71, 80–85.
16.
NicholA.D., HigginsA.M., GabbeB.J., MurrayL.J., CooperD.J., and CameronP.A. (2011). Measuring functional and quality of life outcomes following major head injury: common scales and checklists. Injury, 42, 281–287.
17.
FayolP., CarriereH., HabonimanaD., PreuxP.M., and DumondJ.J. (2004). French version of structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines and first studies of validation. Ann. Readapt. Med. Phys. 47, 142–156.
18.
KielyJ.M., BraselK.J., GuseC.E., and WeigeltJ.A. (2006). Correlation of SF-12 and SF-36 in a trauma population. J. Surg. Res. 132, 214–218.
19.
HastieT., and TibshiraniR. (1995). Generalized additive models for medical research. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 4, 187–196.
20.
TagliaferriF., CompagnoneC., KorsicM., ServadeiF., and KrausJ. (2006). A systematic review of brain injury epidemiology in Europe. Acta Neurochir. (Wien), 148, 255–268; discussion 268.
21.
Van den BrandC.L., KargerL.B., NijmanS.T.M., HuninkM.G.M., PatkaP., and JellemaK. (2018). Traumatic brain injury in the Netherlands, trends in emergency department visits, hospitalization and mortality between 1998 and 2012. Eur. J. Emerg. Med. 25, 355–361.
22.
ShimodaK., MaedaT., TadoM., YoshinoA., KatayamaY., and BullockM.R. (2014). Outcome and surgical management for geriatric traumatic brain injury: analysis of 888 cases registered in the Japan Neurotrauma Data Bank. World Neurosurg. 82, 1300–1306.
23.
McIntyreA., MehtaS., AubutJ., DijkersM., and TeasellR.W. (2013). Mortality among older adults after a traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. Brain Inj. 27, 31–40.
24.
BourasT., StranjalisG., KorfiasS., AndrianakisI., PitaridisM., and SakasD.E. (2007). Head injury mortality in a geriatric population: differentiating an “edge”. age group with better potential for benefit than older poor-prognosis patients. J. Neurotrauma, 24, 1355–1361.
25.
FlaadaJ.T., LeibsonC.L., MandrekarJ.N., DiehlN., PerkinsP.K., BrownA.W., and MalecJ.F. (2007). Relative risk of mortality after traumatic brain injury: a population-based study of the role of age and injury severity. J. Neurotrauma, 24, 435–445.
26.
StocchettiN., PaternoR., CiterioG., BerettaL., and ColomboA. (2012). Traumatic brain injury in an aging population. J. Neurotrauma, 29, 1119–1125.
27.
CorriganJ.D., Harrison-FelixC., BognerJ., DijkersM., TerrillM.S., and WhiteneckG. (2003). Systematic bias in traumatic brain injury outcome studies because of loss to follow-up. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 84, 153–160.
28.
LangleyJ., JohnsonS., SlatyerM., SkilbeckC.E., and ThomasM. (2010). Issues of loss to follow-up in a population study of traumatic brain injury (TBI) followed to 3 years post-trauma. Brain Inj. 24, 939–947.
29.
JourdanC., BayenE., BahramiS., GhoutI., DarnouxE., AzeradS., RuetA., Vallat-AzouviC., WeissJ.J., AegerterP., MateoJ., VigueB., TazarourteK., Pradat-DiehlP., and AzouviP. (2016). Loss to follow-up and social background in an inception cohort of patients with severe traumatic brain injury: results from the PariS-TBI study. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 31, E42–E48.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
