Miller Ferguson Nikki, Sarnaik Ajit, Miles Darryl, Shafi Nadeem, Peters Mark J, Truemper Edward, Vavilala Monica S, Bell Michael J, Wisniewski Stephen R, Luther James F, Hartman Adam L, Kochanek Patrick M
1Department of Pediatrics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.2Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.3Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX.4Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN.5Department of Pediatrics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.6Department of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE.7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.8Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.9Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.10Office of Clinical Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Aug;45(8):1398-1407. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002378.
Small series have suggested that outcomes after abusive head trauma are less favorable than after other injury mechanisms. We sought to determine the impact of abusive head trauma on mortality and identify factors that differentiate children with abusive head trauma from those with traumatic brain injury from other mechanisms.
First 200 subjects from the Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Trial-a comparative effectiveness study using an observational, cohort study design.
PICUs in tertiary children's hospitals in United States and abroad.
Consecutive children (age < 18 yr) with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8; intracranial pressure monitoring).
None.
Demographics, injury-related scores, prehospital, and resuscitation events were analyzed. Children were dichotomized based on likelihood of abusive head trauma. A total of 190 children were included (n = 35 with abusive head trauma). Abusive head trauma subjects were younger (1.87 ± 0.32 vs 9.23 ± 0.39 yr; p < 0.001) and a greater proportion were female (54.3% vs 34.8%; p = 0.032). Abusive head trauma were more likely to 1) be transported from home (60.0% vs 33.5%; p < 0.001), 2) have apnea (34.3% vs 12.3%; p = 0.002), and 3) have seizures (28.6% vs 7.7%; p < 0.001) during prehospital care. Abusive head trauma had a higher prevalence of seizures during resuscitation (31.4 vs 9.7%; p = 0.002). After adjusting for covariates, there was no difference in mortality (abusive head trauma, 25.7% vs nonabusive head trauma, 18.7%; hazard ratio, 1.758; p = 0.60). A similar proportion died due to refractory intracranial hypertension in each group (abusive head trauma, 66.7% vs nonabusive head trauma, 69.0%).
In this large, multicenter series, children with abusive head trauma had differences in prehospital and in-hospital secondary injuries which could have therapeutic implications. Unlike other traumatic brain injury populations in children, female predominance was seen in abusive head trauma in our cohort. Similar mortality rates and refractory intracranial pressure deaths suggest that children with severe abusive head trauma may benefit from therapies including invasive monitoring and adherence to evidence-based guidelines.
小规模研究表明,虐待性头部创伤后的预后比其他损伤机制后的预后更差。我们试图确定虐待性头部创伤对死亡率的影响,并找出能区分虐待性头部创伤儿童与其他机制导致的创伤性脑损伤儿童的因素。
急性儿科创伤性脑损伤试验中的前200名受试者——一项采用观察性队列研究设计的比较有效性研究。
美国及国外三级儿童医院的儿科重症监护病房。
连续纳入的重度创伤性脑损伤儿童(年龄<18岁,格拉斯哥昏迷量表≤8;进行颅内压监测)。
无。
分析人口统计学、损伤相关评分、院前及复苏事件。根据虐待性头部创伤的可能性将儿童分为两组。共纳入190名儿童(n = 35例为虐待性头部创伤)。虐待性头部创伤组的儿童年龄更小(1.87±0.32岁对9.23±0.39岁;p<0.001),女性比例更高(54.3%对34.8%;p = 0.032)。虐待性头部创伤组更有可能:1)从家中转运(60.0%对33.5%;p<0.001),2)出现呼吸暂停(34.3%对12.3%;p = 0.002),3)在院前护理期间出现癫痫发作(28.6%对7.7%;p<0.001)。虐待性头部创伤组在复苏期间癫痫发作的患病率更高(31.4%对9.7%;p = 0.002)。在对协变量进行调整后,死亡率无差异(虐待性头部创伤组为25.7%,非虐待性头部创伤组为18.7%;风险比为1.758;p = 0.60)。每组中因难治性颅内高压死亡的比例相似(虐待性头部创伤组为66.7%,非虐待性头部创伤组为69.0%)。
在这个大型多中心系列研究中,虐待性头部创伤儿童在院前和院内继发性损伤方面存在差异,这可能具有治疗意义。与儿童其他创伤性脑损伤人群不同,我们的队列中虐待性头部创伤以女性为主。相似的死亡率和难治性颅内压死亡情况表明,重度虐待性头部创伤儿童可能受益于包括侵入性监测和遵循循证指南在内的治疗方法。