BACKGROUND: Existing methods to predict recovery after severe traumatic brain injury lack accuracy. The aim of this study is to determine the prognostic value of quantitative diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). METHODS: In a multicenter study, the authors prospectively enrolled 105 patients who remained comatose at least 7 days after traumatic brain injury. Patients underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging, including DTI in 20 preselected white matter tracts. Patients were evaluated at 1 yr with a modified Glasgow Outcome Scale. A composite DTI score was constructed for outcome prognostication on this training database and then validated on an independent database (n=38). DTI score was compared with the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials Score. RESULTS: Using the DTI score for prediction of unfavorable outcome on the training database, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.91). The DTI score had a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 95% for the prediction of unfavorable outcome. On the validation-independent database, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.54-0.94). On the training database, reclassification methods showed significant improvement of classification accuracy (P < 0.05) compared with the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials score. Similar results were observed on the validation database. CONCLUSIONS: White matter assessment with quantitative DTI increases the accuracy of long-term outcome prediction compared with the available clinical/radiographic prognostic score.
BACKGROUND: Existing methods to predict recovery after severe traumatic brain injury lack accuracy. The aim of this study is to determine the prognostic value of quantitative diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). METHODS: In a multicenter study, the authors prospectively enrolled 105 patients who remained comatose at least 7 days after traumatic brain injury. Patients underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging, including DTI in 20 preselected white matter tracts. Patients were evaluated at 1 yr with a modified Glasgow Outcome Scale. A composite DTI score was constructed for outcome prognostication on this training database and then validated on an independent database (n=38). DTI score was compared with the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials Score. RESULTS: Using the DTI score for prediction of unfavorable outcome on the training database, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.91). The DTI score had a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 95% for the prediction of unfavorable outcome. On the validation-independent database, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.54-0.94). On the training database, reclassification methods showed significant improvement of classification accuracy (P < 0.05) compared with the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials score. Similar results were observed on the validation database. CONCLUSIONS: White matter assessment with quantitative DTI increases the accuracy of long-term outcome prediction compared with the available clinical/radiographic prognostic score.
Authors: Eric B Schneider; Sandeepa Sur; Vanessa Raymont; Josh Duckworth; Robert G Kowalski; David T Efron; Xuan Hui; Shalini Selvarajah; Hali L Hambridge; Robert D Stevens Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Karim Asehnoune; Zsolt Balogh; Giuseppe Citerio; Andre Cap; Timothy Billiar; Nino Stocchetti; Mitchell J Cohen; Paolo Pelosi; Nicola Curry; Christine Gaarder; Russell Gruen; John Holcomb; Beverley J Hunt; Nicole P Juffermans; Mark Maegele; Mark Midwinter; Frederick A Moore; Michael O'Dwyer; Jean-François Pittet; Herbert Schöchl; Martin Schreiber; Philip C Spinella; Simon Stanworth; Robert Winfield; Karim Brohi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jonathan Marehbian; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Brian L Edlow; Holly E Hinson; David Y Hwang Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Holly E Hinson; Louis Puybasset; Nicolas Weiss; Vincent Perlbarg; Habib Benali; Damien Galanaud; Mike Lasarev; Robert D Stevens Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: E M Palacios; A J Martin; M A Boss; F Ezekiel; Y S Chang; E L Yuh; M J Vassar; D M Schnyer; C L MacDonald; K L Crawford; A Irimia; A W Toga; P Mukherjee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Francesco T Mangano; Mekibib Altaye; Robert C McKinstry; Joshua S Shimony; Stephanie K Powell; Jannel M Phillips; Holly Barnard; David D Limbrick; Scott K Holland; Blaise V Jones; Jonathan Dodd; Sarah Simpson; Deanna Mercer; Akila Rajagopal; Sarah Bidwell; Weihong Yuan Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 2.375