Vreeburg Rick J G, van Leeuwen Florian D, Manley Geoffrey T, Yue John K, Brennan Paul M, Sun Xiaoying, Jain Sonia, van Essen Thomas A, Peul Wilco C, Maas Andrew I R, Menon David K, Steyerberg Ewout W
University Neurosurgical Center Holland, Leiden University Medical Center, Haaglanden Medical Center and Haga Teaching Hospital, Leiden and the Hague, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J Neurotrauma. 2025 May;42(9-10):798-813. doi: 10.1089/neu.2024.0458. Epub 2024 Dec 17.
To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity captured as part of the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P) score or added as separate variable to the GCS+P, in traumatic brain injury (TBI). We analyzed patients enrolled between 2014 and 2018 in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI, = 3521) and the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI, = 1439) cohorts. Logistic regression was utilized to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P (GCS minus number of unreactive pupils) and GCS+P versus GCS alone according to Nagelkerke's . End-points were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 month post-injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability. In a meta-analysis of CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI, GCS as a linear score had a of 25% (95% CI 19-31%) for mortality and 33% (4-41%) for unfavorable outcome. Pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the by an absolute value of 6% (4.0-7.7%) and 2% (1.2-3.0%) for mortality and unfavorable outcome, respectively, while comparatively half of this improvement was captured by the GCS-P score (3% [2.1-3.3%], 1% [1-1.7%], respectively). GCS-P showed a stronger association with 6-month outcome after TBI than GCS alone and provides a single integrated score. However, this comes at a loss of clinical and prognostic information compared with GCS+P. For prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate factors may be preferable to using a GCS-P summary score.
为比较作为格拉斯哥昏迷量表-瞳孔(GCS-P)评分一部分获取的瞳孔反应性或作为独立变量添加到GCS+P中,在创伤性脑损伤(TBI)中的增量预后价值。我们分析了2014年至2018年纳入欧洲创伤性脑损伤协作神经创伤有效性研究(CENTER-TBI,n = 3521)和创伤性脑损伤转化研究与临床知识(TRACK-TBI,n = 1439)队列的患者。采用逻辑回归根据Nagelkerke's 量化GCS-P(GCS减去无反应瞳孔数)和GCS+P相对于单独GCS的预后性能。终点为伤后6个月的死亡率和不良结局(格拉斯哥结局量表扩展评分1-4)。我们通过自抽样重采样估计95%置信区间(CIs)以总结预后能力的改善。在CENTER-TBI和TRACK-TBI的荟萃分析中,GCS作为线性评分对死亡率的预测值为25%(95%CI 19-31%),对不良结局的预测值为33%(4-41%)。瞳孔反应性作为独立变量分别使死亡率和不良结局的预测值绝对值提高了6%(4.0-7.7%)和2%(1.2-3.0%),而相比之下,这种改善的一半由GCS-P评分体现(分别为3%[2.1-3.3%],1%[1-1.7%])。与单独的GCS相比,GCS-P与TBI后6个月结局的关联更强,并提供单一综合评分。然而,与GCS+P相比,这会损失临床和预后信息。对于预后模型,将GCS和瞳孔反应性作为独立因素纳入可能比使用GCS-P汇总评分更可取。