Evaluating the state of non-invasive imaging biomarkers for traumatic brain injury

被引:0
作者
Sangami Pugazenthi
Miguel A. Hernandez-Rovira
Rida Mitha
James L. Rogers
Raj Swaroop Lavadi
Michael R. Kann
Miguel Ruiz Cardozo
Angela Hardi
Galal A. Elsayed
Jacob Joseph
Stephen N. Housley
Nitin Agarwal
机构
[1] Washington University School of Medicine,Department of Neurosurgery
[2] University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine,Department of Neurological Surgery
[3] Vanderbilt University School of Medicine,Becker Medical Library
[4] Washington University School of Medicine,Och Spine, Weill Cornell Medicine
[5] New-York Presbyterian Hospital,Department of Neurosurgery
[6] University of Michigan Medical School,School of Applied Physiology
[7] Georgia Institute of Technology,Integrated Cancer Research Center, Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience
[8] Georgia Institute of Technology,Department of Neurological Surgery
[9] University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,undefined
来源
Neurosurgical Review | / 46卷
关键词
Traumatic brain injury; Imaging; Biomarkers; Non-invasive;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Non-invasive imaging biomarkers are useful for prognostication in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at high risk for morbidity with invasive procedures. The authors present findings from a scoping review discussing the pertinent biomarkers. Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, and Scopus were queried for original research on imaging biomarkers for prognostication of TBI in adult patients. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Data was synthesized and confidence evaluated with the linked evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search yielded 3104 unique citations, 44 of which were included in this review. Study populations varied in TBI severity, as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), including: mild (n=9), mild and moderate (n=3), moderate and severe (n=7), severe (n=6), and all GCS scores (n=17). Diverse imaging modalities were used for prognostication, predominantly computed tomography (CT) only (n=11), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) only (n=9), and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) (N=9). The biomarkers included diffusion coefficient mapping, metabolic characteristics, optic nerve sheath diameter, T1-weighted signal changes, cortical cerebral blood flow, axial versus extra-axial lesions, T2-weighted gradient versus spin echo, translocator protein levels, and trauma imaging of brainstem areas. The majority (93%) of studies identified that the imaging biomarker of interest had a statistically significant prognostic value; however, these are based on a very low to low level of quality of evidence. No study directly compared the effects on specific TBI treatments on the temporal course of imaging biomarkers. The current literature is insufficient to make a strong recommendation about a preferred imaging biomarker for TBI, especially considering GRADE criteria revealing low quality of evidence. Rigorous prospective research of imaging biomarkers of TBI is warranted to improve the understanding of TBI severity.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 246 条
[1]  
Min JH(2022)Treatment and rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: current update Brain Neurorehabil 15 e14-552
[2]  
Shin YI(2013)CDC grand rounds: reducing severe traumatic brain injury in the United States MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62 549-427
[3]  
Wright DW(2006)Endocrine abnormalities and fatigue after traumatic brain injury J Head Trauma Rehabil 21 426-1388
[4]  
Kellermann A(2010)Fatigue after traumatic brain injury: association with neuroendocrine, sleep, depression and other factors Brain Inj 24 1379-741
[5]  
LC MG(2008)Moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in adults Lancet Neurol 7 728-186
[6]  
Chen B(1996)Minor head injury: attempts at clarifying the confusion Brain Inj 10 159-380
[7]  
Popovic T(1992)Post-traumatic amnesia and Glasgow Coma Scale related to outcome in survivors in a consecutive series of patients with severe closed-head injury Brain Inj 6 373-384
[8]  
Elovic E(2009)The use of Glasgow Coma Scale in injury assessment: a critical review Brain Inj 23 371-360
[9]  
Doppalapudi HS(2003)The status of the Glasgow Coma Scale Emerg Med (Fremantle) 15 353-280
[10]  
Miller M(2007)Prognostic value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and pupil reactivity in traumatic brain injury assessed pre-hospital and on enrollment: an IMPACT analysis J Neurotrauma 24 270-300