Daddy Mata-Mbemba1, Shunji Mugikura2, Atsuhiro Nakagawa3, Takaki Murata1, Kiyoshi Ishii4, Li Li1, Kei Takase1, Shigeki Kushimoto5, Shoki Takahashi1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-Ku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-Ku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan. Electronic address: mugi@rad.med.tohoku.ac.jp. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Sendai City Hospital, Sendai, Japan. 5. Division of Emergency Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Computed tomography (CT) plays a crucial role in early assessment of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Marshall and Rotterdam are the mostly used scoring systems, in which CT findings are grouped differently. We sought to determine the scoring system and initial CT findings predicting the death at hospital discharge (early death) in patients with TBI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 245 consecutive adult patients with mild-to-severe TBI. Their initial CT and status at hospital discharge (dead or alive) were reviewed, and both CT scores were calculated. We examined whether each score was related to early death; compared the two scoring systems' performance in predicting early death, and identified the CT findings that are independent predictors of early death. RESULTS: More deaths occurred among patients with higher Marshall and Rotterdam scores (both P < .05, Mann-Whitney U test). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) indicated that both scoring systems had similarly good discriminative power in predicting early death (Marshall, AUC = 0. 85 vs. Rotterdam, AUC = 0.85). Basal cistern absence (odds ratio [OR] = 771.5, P < .0001), positive midline shift (OR = 56.2, P = .0011), hemorrhagic mass volume ≥25 mL (OR = 12.9, P = .0065), and intraventricular or subarachnoid hemorrhage (OR = 3.8, P = .0395) were independent predictors of early death. CONCLUSIONS: Both Marshall and Rotterdam scoring systems can be used to predict early death in patients with TBI. The performance of the Marshall score is at least equal to that of the Rotterdam score. Thus, although older, the Marshall score remains useful in predicting patients' prognosis.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Computed tomography (CT) plays a crucial role in early assessment of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Marshall and Rotterdam are the mostly used scoring systems, in which CT findings are grouped differently. We sought to determine the scoring system and initial CT findings predicting the death at hospital discharge (early death) in patients with TBI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 245 consecutive adult patients with mild-to-severe TBI. Their initial CT and status at hospital discharge (dead or alive) were reviewed, and both CT scores were calculated. We examined whether each score was related to early death; compared the two scoring systems' performance in predicting early death, and identified the CT findings that are independent predictors of early death. RESULTS: More deaths occurred among patients with higher Marshall and Rotterdam scores (both P < .05, Mann-Whitney U test). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) indicated that both scoring systems had similarly good discriminative power in predicting early death (Marshall, AUC = 0. 85 vs. Rotterdam, AUC = 0.85). Basal cistern absence (odds ratio [OR] = 771.5, P < .0001), positive midline shift (OR = 56.2, P = .0011), hemorrhagic mass volume ≥25 mL (OR = 12.9, P = .0065), and intraventricular or subarachnoid hemorrhage (OR = 3.8, P = .0395) were independent predictors of early death. CONCLUSIONS: Both Marshall and Rotterdam scoring systems can be used to predict early death in patients with TBI. The performance of the Marshall score is at least equal to that of the Rotterdam score. Thus, although older, the Marshall score remains useful in predicting patients' prognosis.
Authors: Aric F Logsdon; Brandon P Lucke-Wold; Ryan C Turner; Jason D Huber; Charles L Rosen; James W Simpkins Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 9.090
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: Eric T Caliendo; Nayoung Kim; David Edasery; Gulce Askin; Sophie Nowak; Linda M Gerber; Katherine T Baum; Laura S Blackwell; Christine H Koterba; Kristen R Hoskinson; Brad G Kurowski; Matthew McLaughlin; Sarah J Tlustos; William D Watson; Sumit N Niogi; Stacy J Suskauer; Sudhin A Shah Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.869
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
Authors: Elisabeth A Wilde; Ina-Beate Wanner; Kimbra Kenney; Jessica Gill; James R Stone; Seth Disner; Caroline Schnakers; Retsina Meyer; Eric M Prager; Magali Haas; Andreas Jeromin Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 5.269