| Literature DB >> 26455520 |
Jin Lei1,2, Guoyi Gao3,4, Junfeng Feng5,6, Yichao Jin7,8, Chuanfang Wang9,10, Qing Mao11,12, Jiyao Jiang13,14.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) may serve as a serum marker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) that can be used to monitor biochemical changes in patients and gauge the response to treatment. However, the temporal profile of serum GFAP in the acute period of brain injury and the associated utility for outcome prediction has not been elucidated.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26455520 PMCID: PMC4601141 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-015-1081-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Clinical and demographic characteristics of the 67 studied patients by outcome category at 6 months post injury
| Total (n = 67) | Death (GOS = 1) | Unfavorable outcome (GOS = 1–3) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (n = 27) | No (n = 40) |
| Yes (n = 35) | No (n = 32) |
| ||
| Age (yrs, mean ± SD) | 37.2 ± 14.3 | 42.0 ± 16.1 | 33.9 ± 12.0 | 0.039 | 40.0 ± 15.0 | 34.1 ± 12.9 | 0.503 |
| Male, n (%) | 51 (76.1) | 21 (77.8) | 30 (75.0) | 0.794 | 28 (80.0) | 23 (71.9) | 0.436 |
| Cause of injury, n (%) | |||||||
| Traffic accident | 33 (49.3) | 13 (48.1) | 20 (50.0) | 0.968 | 17 (48.6) | 16 (50.0) | 0.997 |
| Fall | 26 (38.8) | 11 (40.7) | 15 (37.5) | 14 (40.0) | 12 (37.5) | ||
| Violence | 6 (8.9) | 2 (7.4) | 4 (10.0) | 3 (8.6) | 3 (9.4) | ||
| Other | 2 (2.9) | 1 (3.7) | 1 (2.5) | 1 (2.9) | 1 (3.1) | ||
| Time after injury (hrs, mean ± SD) | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 2.6 ± 1.2 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 0.333 | 2.4 ± 1.2 | 2.9 ± 1.1 | 0.791 |
| GCS, median (range) | 6 (3–8) | 5 (3–8) | 7 (3–8) | 0.006 | 5 (3–8) | 7 (3–8) | 0.001 |
| GCS 3–5, n (%) | 25 | 16 (59.3) | 9 (22.5) | 0.012 | 19 (54.3) | 6 (18.8) | 0.006 |
| GCS 6–8, n (%) | 42 | 11 (40.7) | 31 (77.5) | 16 (45.7) | 26 (81.2) | ||
| Pupil reactions, n (%) | |||||||
| Both present | 38 | 10 (37.0) | 28 (41.8) | 0.015 | 13 (37.1) | 25 (78.1) | 0.032 |
| At least one unreactive pupil | 29 | 17 (63.0) | 12 (58.2) | 22 (62.9) | 7 (21.9) | ||
| Marshall CT classification, n (%) | |||||||
| Missing | 3 (4.5) | 1 (3.7) | 2 (5) | 0.641 | 1 (2.9) | 2 (6.3) | 0.406 |
| Diffuse injury I | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Diffuse injury II | 7 (10.4) | 3 (11.1) | 4 (10) | 4 (11.4) | 3 (9.4) | ||
| Diffuse injury III | 11 (16.4) | 6 (22.2) | 5 (12.5) | 6 (17.1) | 5 (15.6) | ||
| Diffuse injury IV | 13 (19.4) | 6 (22.2) | 7 (17.5) | 10 (28.6) | 3 (9.4) | ||
| Evacuated mass lesion | 30 (44.8) | 11 (40.7) | 19 (47.5) | 13 (37.1) | 17 (53.1) | ||
| Non-evacuated mass lesion | 3 (4.5) | 0 (0) | 3 (7.5) | 1 (2.9) | 2 (6.3) | ||
| Neurosurgery, n (%) | |||||||
| Yes | 59 (88.1) | 25 (92.6) | 34 (85.0) | 0.347 | 33 (94.3) | 26 (81.3) | 0.100 |
| No | 8 (11.9) | 2 (7.4) | 6 (15.0) | 2 (5.7) | 6 (18.7) | ||
| Duration of neurosurgery, (hrs, mean ± SD)a | 2.6 ± 1.3 | 3.1 ± 1.2 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 0.704 | 3.2 ± 1.2 | 1.9 ± 1.0 | 0.216 |
GOS Glasgow Outcome Scale, yrs years, SD standard deviation, hrs hours, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, CT computed tomography
aDocumented in 59 of 67 patients
Fig. 1Serum GFAP levels by the overall population during the first 6 days post injury. D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 represent the admission day and days 1–5 post injury, respectively. Box and whisker plots show median, interquartile range (IQR), and values within ± 1.5 of IQR. Outliers are plotted as open circles. The number under each box is the number of samples available for analysis. Hypothermia was induced in patients when admitted into the NICU, and was maintained for the first 3 days then terminated with slow rewarming. GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein, NICU neurosurgical intensive care unit
Fig. 2Serum GFAP levels by each outcome group over the first 6 days post injury, shown as box plots. D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 represent the admission day and days 1–5 post injury, respectively. Box and whisker plots show median, interquartile range (IQR), and values within ± 1.5 of IQR. Outliers are plotted as open circles. The number under each box is the number of samples available for analysis. Hypothermia was induced in patients when admitted into the NICU, and was maintained for the first 3 days then terminated with slow rewarming. GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein, NICU neurosurgical intensive care unit
Fig. 3Median serum GFAP levels by categorized outcome groups. a Death versus survival. b Unfavorable versus favorable outcome. Error bars show interquartile ranges. GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein
Patient characteristics between diffuse injury and surgical lesion group
| Diffuse injury | Surgical lesion |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 31) | (n = 30) | ||
| Age (yrs, mean ± SD) | 35.1 ± 14.3 | 40.6 ± 14.9 | 0.917 |
| Male, n (%) | 24 (77.4) | 23 (76.7) | 0.944 |
| GCS, median (range) | 6 (3–8) | 6 (3–8) | 0.071 |
| GCS 3–5, n (%) | 10 (32.3) | 14 (46.7) | 0.300 |
| GCS 6–8, n (%) | 21 (67.7) | 16 (53.3) | |
| Pupil reactions, n (%) | |||
| Both present | 20 (64.5) | 13 (43.3) | 0.126 |
| At least one unreactive pupil | 11 (35.5) | 17 (56.7) | |
| 6-month outcome, n (%) | |||
| Death/alive | 15 (48.4)/16 (51.6) | 11 (36.7)/19 (63.3) | 0.440 |
| Unfavorable/favorable | 20 (64.5)/11 (35.5) | 13 (43.3)/17 (56.7) | 0.202 |
Yrs years, SD standard deviation, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale
Fig. 4Receiver operating curves (ROC) for serum GFAP from the admission day to day 5 post injury and prediction of death (a) and unfavorable outcome (c). Each day has a representative curve. The area under the curve (AUC) over time was also plotted (b and d). GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein
Predictive values of admission serum GFAP and clinical variables for death and unfavorable outcome at 6 months of injury
| Death (GOS = 1) | Unfavorable outcome (GOS = 1–3) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Cutoff | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC (95 % CI) | Cutoff | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC (95 % CI) |
| GFAP (ng/ml) | 1.690 | 84.6 | 69.2 | 64.7 | 87.1 | 0.761 (0.606, 0.917) | 1.559 | 85.3 | 77.4 | 80.6 | 82.8 | 0.823 (0.700, 0.947) |
| Age (years) | 44.5 | 44.4 | 82.5 | 63.2 | 68.8 | 0.592 (0.503, 0.681) | 39.5 | 45.7 | 65.6 | 59.3 | 52.5 | 0.617 (0.482, 0.751) |
| GCS score | 4.5 | 90.0 | 48.1 | 72.0 | 76.5 | 0.742 (0.616, 0.868) | 5.5 | 81.3 | 54.3 | 61.9 | 76.0 | 0.751 (0.620, 0.862) |
| Pupil reactions | Absent | 70.0 | 63.0 | 73.7 | 58.6 | 0.665 (0.530, 0.800) | Absent | 78.1 | 62.9 | 65.8 | 75.9 | 0.705 (0.578, 0.832) |
The (optimal) cutoff values were determined using receiver operating characteristic curve under the condition of equal costs of misclassification of cases and non-cases; i.e., the sum of the sensitivity and the specificity to predict the chosen outcome category was maximal
GFAP glial fibrillary acidic protein, GOS Glasgow Outcome Scale, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, AUC area under the curve, CI confidence interval, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale