Applying an updated brain injury guideline classification to interhospital transfer of patients with traumatic brain injury: Who benefits most?
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · 2024-12-25 · Observational study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) categorize patients with mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). We examined whether TBI transfer guidelines should be modified to incorporate BIG alongside polytrauma and patient frailty assessments to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from transfer. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old transferred to our Level 1 trauma center in 2019-2023 with nonpenetrating blunt cranial trauma were identified retrospectively. BIG scores were calculated using presentation, injury, in-hospital, and follow-up characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 999-patient cohort, 168 patients were considered BIG1, 133 BIG2, and 698 BIG3. BIG1 and BIG2 (compared with BIG3) patients had lower injury severity scores (14.6, 13.8, 19.9, respectively, p < 0.001), no > 1-point decline in Glasgow Coma Scale score during transportation (0, 0, 16.8 %, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (4.6 days, 3.6, 8.3, p < 0.001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (31.5 %, 37.6 %, 66.6 %, p < 0.001), rare progression on imaging (1.2 %, 4.6 %, 29.4 %, p) without clinical decline, and minimal neurosurgical interventions (0, 1.5 %, 13.9 %, p < 0.001). BIG2 polytrauma patients had greater risk of neurologic decline (OR 2.13, p = .04), whereas BIG1 patients had no meaningful predictors of neurologic decline. BIG3 classification (OR 5.92), SDH (OR 3.03), and high-velocity injury (OR 2.52) were the greatest risk factors for neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: BIG1 and BIG2 patients without polytrauma may not require transfer, but BIG2 patients with polytrauma and BIG3 patients often required transfer. Frailty and patient age may not require consideration in decision-making. Assessment including BIG and polytrauma may reduce unnecessary transfers, preserve hospital resources, and optimize patient care.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Interfacility & critical care transport · Older adults · Time intervals · Triage instruments
Related articles
- Time-critical care gaps and systemic delays linked to higher mortality in severe trauma patients in Tanzania. (BMC Emerg Med, 2026)
- The Impact of Delays in Interfaculty Transfer on Outcomes in Elderly Trauma Patients. (Am Surg, 2022)
- Efficacy of a two-tiered trauma team activation protocol in a Norwegian trauma centre. (Br J Surg, 2012)
- Use of 911 for Rapid Re-Triage of Critical Trauma Patients. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2020)
- Evaluation of the New South Wales ambulance T1 major trauma transport protocol: A state-wide data linkage study. (Injury, 2023)
- Mortality rates of severe traumatic brain injury patients: impact of direct versus nondirect transfers. (J Surg Res, 2017)