Comparing blood biomarkers to clinical decision rules to select patients suspected of traumatic brain injury for head computed tomography

Abstract

Introduction

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health concern in the U.S. Recommendations for patients admitted in the emergency department (ED) to receive head computed tomography (CT) scan are currently guided by various clinical decision rules.

Objective

To compare how a blood biomarker approach compares with clinical decision rules in terms of predicting a positive head CT in adult patients suspected of TBI.

Methods

We retrospectively identified patients transported to our emergency department and underwent a noncontrast head CT due to suspicion of TBI and who had blood samples available. Published thresholds for serum and plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1), and serum S100β were used to make CT recommendations. These blood biomarker-based recommendations were compared to those achieved under widely used clinical head CT decision rules (Canadian, New Orleans, NEXUS II, and ACEP Clinical Policy).

Results

Our study included 463 patients, of which 122 (26.3%) had one or more abnormalities presenting on head CT. Individual blood biomarkers achieved high negative predictive value (NPV) for abnormal head CT findings (88%–98%), although positive predictive value (PPV) was consistently low (25%–42%). A composite biomarker-based decision rule (GFAP+UCH-L1)’s NPV of 100% and PPV of 29% were comparable or better than those achieved under the clinical decision rules.

Conclusion

Blood biomarkers perform at least as well as clinical rules in terms of selecting TBI patients for head CT and may be easier to implement in the clinical setting. A prospective study is necessary to validate this approach.

Keywords

traumatic brain injury head computed tomography biomarkers plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein S100β ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase-L1

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2019; 18(5): 459–480.

Marin

Weaver

Yealy

, et al. Trends in visits for traumatic brain injury to emergency departments in the United States. JAMA 2014; 311(18): 1917–1919.

Taylor

Bell

Breiding

, et al. Traumatic Brain Injury-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths - United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017; 66(9): 1–16.

Wintermark

Sanelli

Anzai

, et al. Imaging evidence and recommendations for traumatic brain injury: conventional neuroimaging techniques. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12(2): e1–14.

Iverson

Lovell

Smith

, et al. Prevalence of abnormal CT-scans following mild head injury. Brain Inj 2000; 14(12): 1057–1061.

Davey

Saul

Russel

, et al. Application of the Canadian computed tomography head rule to patients with minimal head injury. Ann Emerg Med 2018; 72(4): 342–350.

Stiell

Lesiuk

Wells

, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule Study for patients with minor head injury: rationale, objectives, and methodology for phase I (derivation). Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38(2): 160–169.

Papa

Stiell

Clement

, et al. Performance of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for predicting any traumatic intracranial injury on computed tomography in a United States Level I trauma center. Acad Emerg Med 2012; 19(1): 2–10.

Smits

Dippel

de Haan

, et al. External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. JAMA 2005; 294(12): 1519–1525.

10.

Mower

Hoffman

Herbert

, et al. Developing a clinical decision instrument to rule out intracranial injuries in patients with minor head trauma: methodology of the NEXUS II investigation. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40(5): 505–514.

11.

DeAngelis

Lou

, et al. Head CT for minor head injury presenting to the emergency department in the era of choosing wisely. West J Emerg Med 2017; 18(5): 821–829.

12.

Manquen

Combs

Mazur-Mosiewicz

, et al. A review of research efforts to address the 2008 ACEP guideline for mild traumatic brain injury. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37(1): 73–79.

13.

Harnan

Pickering

Pandor

, et al. Clinical decision rules for adults with minor head injury: a systematic review. J Trauma 2011; 71(1): 245–251.

14.

Easter

Haukoos

Meehan

, et al. Will neuroimaging reveal a severe intracranial injury in this adult with minor head trauma?: The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 2015; 314(24): 2672–2681.

15.

Foks

van den Brand

Lingsma

, et al. External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands. BMJ 2018; 362: k3527.

16.

Nygren De Boussard

Fredman

Lundin

, et al. S100 in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2004; 18(7): 671–683.

17.

Iverson

Reddi

Posti

, et al. Serum neurofilament light is elevated differentially in older adults with uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injuries. J Neurotrauma 2019; 36(16): 2400–2406.

18.

Gill

Latour

Diaz-Arrastia

, et al. Glial fibrillary acidic protein elevations relate to neuroimaging abnormalities after mild TBI. Neurology 2018; 91(15): e1385–e1389.

19.

Diaz-Arrastia

Wang

Papa

, et al. Acute biomarkers of traumatic brain injury: relationship between plasma levels of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein. J Neurotrauma 2014; 31(1): 19–25.

20.

Thelin

Jeppsson

Frostell

, et al. Utility of neuron-specific enolase in traumatic brain injury; relations to S100B levels, outcome, and extracranial injury severity. Crit Care 2016; 20: 285.

21.

Forouzan

Motamed

Delirrooyfard

, et al. Serum cleaved tau protein and clinical outcome in patients with minor head trauma. Open Access Emerg Med 2020; 12: 7–12.

22.

Chen

Shi

Zheng

, et al. Role of α-II-spectrin breakdown products in the prediction of the severity and clinical outcome of acute traumatic brain injury. Exp Ther Med 2016; 11(5): 2049–2053.

23.

Yokobori

Hosein

Burks

, et al. Biomarkers for the clinical differential diagnosis in traumatic brain injury--a systematic review. CNS Neurosci Ther 2013; 19(8): 556–565.

24.

Rezaii

Grant

Zeineh

, et al. Stability of blood biomarkers of traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2019; 36(16): 2407–2416.

25.

Welch

Ayaz

Lewis

, et al. Ability of serum glial fibrillary acidic protein, ubiquitin C-Terminal Hydrolase-L1, and S100B to differentiate normal and abnormal head computed tomography findings in patients with suspected mild or moderate Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma 2016; 33(2): 203–214.

26.

Haacke

Duhaime

Gean

, et al. Common data elements in radiologic imaging of traumatic brain injury. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32(3): 516–543.

27.

Bazarian

Biberthaler

Welch

, et al. Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17(9): 782–789.

28.

Leisenring

Alonzo

Pepe

. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics 2000; 56(2): 345–351.

29.

R Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Published 2019 (2019, Accessed May 2020). Published

30.

Wolf

Frantal

Pajenda

, et al. Predictive value of neuromarkers supported by a set of clinical criteria in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: S100B protein and neuron-specific enolase on trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2013; 118(6): 1298–1303.

31.

Gan

Stein

Swanson

, et al. Blood biomarkers for Traumatic Brain Injury: a quantitative assessment of diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 446.

32.

Papa

Brophy

Welch

, et al. Time course and diagnostic accuracy of glial and neuronal blood biomarkers GFAP and UCH-L1 in a large cohort of trauma patients with and without mild traumatic brain injury. JAMA Neurol 2016; 73(5): 551–560.

33.

Tan

Lim

AME

Ong

, et al.

Computed tomography of the head for adult patients with minor head injury: are clinical decision rules a necessary evil?

Singapore Med J 2018; 59(4): 199–204.

34.

Melnick

Szlezak

Bentley

, et al. CT overuse for mild traumatic brain injury. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012; 38(11): 483–489.

35.

Korley

Morton

Hill

, et al. Agreement between routine emergency department care and clinical decision support recommended care in patients evaluated for mild traumatic brain injury. Acad Emerg Med 2013; 20(5): 463–469.

36.

Eagles

Stiell

Clement

, et al. International survey of emergency physicians' awareness and use of the Canadian Cervical-Spine Rule and the Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule. Acad Emerg Med 2008; 15(12): 1256–1261.

37.

Heskestad

Baardsen

Helseth

, et al. Guideline compliance in management of minimal, mild, and moderate head injury: high frequency of noncompliance among individual physicians despite strong guideline support from clinical leaders. J Trauma 2008; 65(6): 1309–1313.

38.

Schachar

Zampolin

Miller

, et al. External validation of the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) for CT scanning in pediatric patients with minor head injury in a non-trauma center. Pediatr Radiol 2011; 41(8): 971–979.

39.

Bouida

Marghli

Souissi

, et al. Prediction value of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria for positive head CT scan and acute neurosurgical procedures in minor head trauma: a multicenter external validation study. Ann Emerg Med 2013; 61(5): 521–527.

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.

0.00 MB

0.32 MB