Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2220969. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20969.
Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been used for decades as a treatment for children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is recommended by evidenced-based guidelines. However, these recommendations are based on limited studies.
To determine whether CSF diversion is associated with improved Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended for Pediatrics (GOS-EP) and decreased intracranial pressure (ICP) in children with severe TBI.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational comparative effectiveness study was performed at 51 clinical centers that routinely care for children with severe TBI in 8 countries (US, United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India) from February 2014 to September 2017, with follow-up at 6 months after injury (final follow-up, October 22, 2021). Children with severe TBI were included if they had Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 8 or lower, had intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor placed on-site, and were aged younger than 18 years. Children were excluded if they were pregnant or an ICP monitor was not placed at the study site. Consecutive children were screened and enrolled, data regarding treatments were collected, and at discharge, consent was obtained for outcomes testing. Propensity matching for pretreatment characteristics was performed to develop matched pairs for primary analysis. Data analyses were completed on April 18, 2022.
Clinical care followed local standards, including the use of CSF diversion (or not), with patients stratified at the time of ICP monitor placement (CSF group vs no CSF group).
The primary outcome was GOS-EP at 6 months, while ICP was considered as a secondary outcome. CSF vs no CSF was treated as an intention-to-treat analysis, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for children who received delayed CSF diversion.
A total of 1000 children with TBI were enrolled, including 314 who received CSF diversion (mean [SD] age, 7.18 [5.45] years; 208 [66.2%] boys) and 686 who did not (mean [SD] age, 7.79 [5.33] years; 437 [63.7%] boys). The propensity-matched analysis included 98 pairs. In propensity score-matched analyses, there was no difference between groups in GOS-EP (median [IQR] difference, 0 [-3 to 1]; P = .08), but there was a decrease in overall ICP in the CSF group (mean [SD] difference, 3.97 [0.12] mm Hg; P < .001).
In this comparative effectiveness study, CSF diversion was not associated with improved outcome at 6 months after TBI, but a decrease in ICP was observed. Given the higher quality of evidence generated by this study, current evidence-based guidelines related to CSF diversion should be reconsidered.
脑脊液(CSF)分流术已被使用数十年,作为治疗严重创伤性脑损伤(TBI)儿童的一种方法,并有循证指南推荐。然而,这些建议是基于有限的研究。
确定 CSF 分流术是否与儿科格拉斯哥预后评分-扩展(GOS-EP)的改善和严重 TBI 儿童颅内压(ICP)的降低相关。
设计、地点和参与者:这项观察性比较有效性研究在 8 个国家的 51 个临床中心进行(美国、英国、西班牙、荷兰、澳大利亚、新西兰、南非和印度),这些中心常规治疗严重 TBI 儿童,从 2014 年 2 月至 2017 年 9 月,损伤后 6 个月进行随访(最终随访,2021 年 10 月 22 日)。纳入标准为格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)为 8 分或更低、有颅内压(ICP)监测器现场放置且年龄小于 18 岁的严重 TBI 儿童。如果儿童怀孕或 ICP 监测器未在研究地点放置,则将其排除在外。连续筛选和招募儿童,收集治疗数据,并在出院时获得结局测试的同意。进行治疗前特征的倾向评分匹配,以制定主要分析的匹配对。数据分析于 2022 年 4 月 18 日完成。
临床护理遵循当地标准,包括 CSF 分流术(或不)的使用,在 ICP 监测器放置时对患者进行分层(CSF 组与无 CSF 组)。
主要结局为 6 个月时的 GOS-EP,而 ICP 被视为次要结局。CSF 与无 CSF 作为意向治疗分析,对接受延迟 CSF 分流的儿童进行敏感性分析。
共纳入 1000 名 TBI 儿童,其中 314 名接受 CSF 分流术(平均[SD]年龄,7.18[5.45]岁;208[66.2%]名男孩),686 名未接受(平均[SD]年龄,7.79[5.33]岁;437[63.7%]名男孩)。倾向性匹配分析包括 98 对。在倾向性评分匹配分析中,两组之间 GOS-EP 无差异(中位数[IQR]差值,0[-3 至 1];P=0.08),但 CSF 组的总 ICP 降低(平均[SD]差值,3.97[0.12]mmHg;P<0.001)。
在这项比较有效性研究中,CSF 分流术与 TBI 后 6 个月的结局改善无关,但观察到 ICP 降低。鉴于该研究产生的高质量证据,应重新考虑与 CSF 分流相关的当前循证指南。