PURPOSE: To discuss the repeated CT scanning in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to identify the conditions under which this approach is necessary. METHODS:One hundred and seventy-one patients who suffered TBI but were not surgically treated were divided into two groups: the routine-repeat CT group (n = 89) and the non-routine-repeat CT group (n = 82). The patients' clinical characteristics were compared. T-tests and stepwise logistic regression were used for analysis. Patients in the routine-repeat CT group were divided into three groups according to GCS scores to determine the need for routinely repeated CT scans. RESULTS: The results revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of neuro-ICU-LOS and LOS (p < 0.01). No significant differences emerged with respect to hospital charges and GCS scores at discharge (p > 0.05). AGE, international normalized ratio (INR), D-dimer concentration (DD), GCS scores and number of hours between the first CT scan and the injury (HCT1) were influential factors of developing progressive haemorrhage. CONCLUSION: The routine-repeat CT group fared better than did the non-routine-repeat CT group. Routinely repeated CTs were minimally effective among those with mild TBI, whereas this procedure demonstrated a significant effect on patients with moderate and severe TBI.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To discuss the repeated CT scanning in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to identify the conditions under which this approach is necessary. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-one patients who suffered TBI but were not surgically treated were divided into two groups: the routine-repeat CT group (n = 89) and the non-routine-repeat CT group (n = 82). The patients' clinical characteristics were compared. T-tests and stepwise logistic regression were used for analysis. Patients in the routine-repeat CT group were divided into three groups according to GCS scores to determine the need for routinely repeated CT scans. RESULTS: The results revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of neuro-ICU-LOS and LOS (p < 0.01). No significant differences emerged with respect to hospital charges and GCS scores at discharge (p > 0.05). AGE, international normalized ratio (INR), D-dimer concentration (DD), GCS scores and number of hours between the first CT scan and the injury (HCT1) were influential factors of developing progressive haemorrhage. CONCLUSION: The routine-repeat CT group fared better than did the non-routine-repeat CT group. Routinely repeated CTs were minimally effective among those with mild TBI, whereas this procedure demonstrated a significant effect on patients with moderate and severe TBI.
Authors: Arnold Tóth; Ilona Schmalfuss; Shelley C Heaton; Andrea Gabrielli; H Julia Hannay; Linda Papa; Gretchen M Brophy; Kevin K W Wang; András Büki; Attila Schwarcz; Ronald L Hayes; Claudia S Robertson; Steven A Robicsek Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Carl Marincowitz; Fiona E Lecky; William Townend; Aditya Borakati; Andrea Fabbri; Trevor A Sheldon Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Marion Wiegele; Herbert Schöchl; Alexander Haushofer; Martin Ortler; Johannes Leitgeb; Oskar Kwasny; Ronny Beer; Cihan Ay; Eva Schaden Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Kayla M Frodsham; Joseph E Fair; R Brock Frost; Ramona O Hopkins; Erin D Bigler; Sarah Majercik; Joseph Bledsoe; David Ryser; Joel MacDonald; Ryan Barrett; Susan D Horn; David Pisani; Mark Stevens; Michael J Larson Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.412