Skip to main content
Log in

Prognostic Value of Hemorrhagic Brainstem Injury on Early Computed Tomography: A TRACK-TBI Study

  • Original work
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 30 September 2021

An Invited Commentary to this article was published on 26 July 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Traumatic brainstem injury has yet to be incorporated into widely used imaging classification systems for traumatic brain injury (TBI), and questions remain regarding prognostic implications for this TBI subgroup. To address this, retrospective data on patients from the multicenter prospective Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI study were studied.

Methods

Patients with brainstem and cerebrum injury (BSI+) were matched by age, sex, and admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score to patients with cerebrum injuries only. All patients had an interpretable head computed tomography (CT) scan from the first 48 hours after injury and a 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score. CT scans were reviewed for brainstem lesions and, when present, characterized by location, size, and type (traumatic axonal injury, contusion, or Duret hemorrhage). Clinical, demographic, and outcome data were then compared between the two groups.

Results

Mann–Whitney U-tests showed no significant difference in 6-month GOSE scores in patients with BSI+ (mean 2.7) compared with patients with similar but only cerebrum injuries (mean 3.9), although there is a trend (p = 0.10). However, subclassification by brainstem lesion type, traumatic axonal injury (mean 4.0) versus Duret hemorrhage or contusion (mean 1.4), did identify a proportion of BSI+ with significantly less favorable outcome (p = 0.002). The incorporation of brainstem lesion type (traumatic axonal injury vs. contusion/Duret), along with GCS into a multivariate logistic regression model of favorable outcome (GOSE score 4–8) did show a significant contribution to the prognostication of this brainstem injury subgroup (odds ratio 0.08, 95% confidence interval 0.00–0.67, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

These findings suggest two groups of patients with brainstem injuries may exist with divergent recovery potential after TBI. These data support the notion that newer CT imaging classification systems may augment traditional clinical measures, such as GCS in identifying those patients with TBI and brainstem injuries that stand a higher chance of favorable outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Schweitzer AD, Niogi SN, Whitlow CT, Tsiouris AJ. Traumatic brain injury: imaging patterns and complications. Radiographics. 2019;39:1571–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wintermark M, Sanelli PC, Anzai Y, Tsiouris AJ, Whitlow CT. Imaging evidence and recommendations for traumatic brain injury: advanced neuro- and neurovascular imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36:E1-11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thelin EP, Nelson DW, Vehvilainen J, et al. Evaluation of novel computerized tomography scoring systems in human traumatic brain injury: an observational, multicenter study. PLoS Med. 2017;14:e1002368.

  4. Brown AW, Pretz CR, Bell KR, et al. Predictive utility of an adapted Marshall head CT classification scheme after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2019;33:610–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rubin R. Traumatic brain injury hospital stays are longer, more costly. JAMA. 2020;323:1998.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Raj R, Siironen J, Skrifvars MB, Hernesniemi J, Kivisaari R. Predicting outcome in traumatic brain injury: development of a novel computerized tomography classification system (Helsinki computerized tomography score). Neurosurgery. 2014;75:632–46; discussion 46–7.

  7. Nelson DW, Nyström H, MacCallum RM, et al. Extended analysis of early computed tomography scans of traumatic brain injured patients and relations to outcome. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27:51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yuh EL, Cooper SR, Ferguson AR, Manley GT. Quantitative CT improves outcome prediction in acute traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:735–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenblum WI. Immediate, irreversible, posttraumatic coma: a review indicating that bilateral brainstem injury rather than widespread hemispheric damage is essential for its production. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2015;74:198–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chew BG, Spearman CM, Quigley MR, Wilberger JE. The prognostic significance of traumatic brainstem injury detected on T2-weighted MRI. J Neurosurg. 2012;117:722–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yuh EL, Mukherjee P, Lingsma HF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging improves 3-month outcome prediction in mild traumatic brain injury. Ann Neurol. 2013;73:224–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cicuendez M, Castaño-León A, Ramos A, Hilario A, Gómez PA, Lagares A. The added prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in traumatic brain injury: the importance of traumatic axonal injury when performing ordinal logistic regression. J Neuroradiol. 2019;46:299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haghbayan H, Boutin A, Laflamme M, et al. The prognostic value of MRI in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e1280-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Izzy S, Mazwi NL, Martinez S, et al. Revisiting grade 3 diffuse axonal injury: not all brainstem microbleeds are prognostically equal. Neurocrit Care. 2017;27:199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gentry LR, Godersky JC, Thompson B, Dunn VD. Prospective comparative study of intermediate-field MR and CT in the evaluation of closed head trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:673–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Skandsen T, Kvistad KA, Solheim O, Strand IH, Folvik M, Vik A. Prevalence and impact of diffuse axonal injury in patients with moderate and severe head injury: a cohort study of early magnetic resonance imaging findings and 1-year outcome. J Neurosurg. 2010;113:556–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Skandsen T, Kvistad KA, Solheim O, Lydersen S, Strand IH, Vik A. Prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in moderate and severe head injury: a prospective study of early MRI findings and one-year outcome. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:691–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mannion RJ, Cross J, Bradley P, et al. Mechanism-based MRI classification of traumatic brainstem injury and its relationship to outcome. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:128–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Edlow BL, Giacino JT, Hirschberg RE, Gerrard J, Wu O, Hochberg LR. Unexpected recovery of function after severe traumatic brain injury: the limits of early neuroimaging-based outcome prediction. Neurocrit Care. 2013;19:364–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brain and Spinal Injury Center. Transforming research and clinical knowledge in TBI. Brain and Spinal Injury Center, UCSF. 2014. Accessed July 13, 2020. https://tracktbi.ucsf.edu/transforming-research-and-clinical-knowledge-tbi.

  21. Maas AI, Harrison-Felix CL, Menon D, et al. Common data elements for traumatic brain injury: recommendations from the interagency working group on demographics and clinical assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1641–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shukla D, Devi BI, Agrawal A. Outcome measures for traumatic brain injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;113:435–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yue JK, Vassar MJ, Lingsma HF, et al. Transforming research and clinical knowledge in traumatic brain injury pilot: multicenter implementation of the common data elements for traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30:1831–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Parvizi J, Damasio AR. Neuroanatomical correlates of brainstem coma. Brain. 2003;126:1524–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Roozenbeek B, Lingsma HF, Lecky FE, et al. Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:1609–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lingsma H, Andriessen TM, Haitsema I, et al. Prognosis in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the IMPACT models and the role of extracranial injuries. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74:639–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gómez PA, de la Cruz J, Lora D, et al. Validation of a prognostic score for early mortality in severe head injury cases. J Neurosurg. 2014;121:1314–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Jeurotrauma. 2007;24:329–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Duret RL. A rare and little known hemorrhagic syndrome. Brux Med. 1955;35:797–800.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Meany DF, Cullen DK. Biomechanical basis of traumatic brain injury. Youmans and Winn's Neurological Surgery, 7th edition. 2016. 2755–64.e1.

  31. Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, Adams JH, Graham DI, Thompson CJ, Marcincin RP. Diffuse axonal injury and traumatic coma in the primate. Ann Neurol. 1982;12:564–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Adams JH, Doyle D, Ford I, Gennarelli TA, Graham DI, McLellan DR. Diffuse axonal injury in head injury: definition, diagnosis and grading. Histopathology. 1989;15:49–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Edlow BL, Takahashi E, Wu O, et al. Neuroanatomic connectivity of the human ascending arousal system critical to consciousness and its disorders. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2012;71:531–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Edlow BL, Haynes RL, Takahashi E, et al. Disconnection of the ascending arousal system in traumatic coma. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2013;72:505–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the patients and their families for their participation and support of the TRACK-TBI study. Funding for the original TRACK-TBI study was awarded to GTM by the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

Funding was provided by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Grant No. U01NS086090) and U.S. Department of Defense (Grant No. W81XWH-14-2-0176).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

JRW contributed to the study design, analysis, drafting of the manuscript, critical revisions, and final approval of the published work. ENB contributed to conception, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. AF contributed to conception, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. CY contributed to conception, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. NRT reports contributed to study design, analysis, interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revisions, and final approval of the published work. JTG contributed to study design, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. DOO contributed to study design, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. GTM reports contributed to study design, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. JB contributed to analysis, revising the manuscript, and final approval of the published work. SD contributed to interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revisions, and final approval of the published work. AJM contributed to interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revisions, and final approval of the published work. ELY contributed to data acquisition, interpretation of the data, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. PM contributed to data acquisition, interpretation of the data, intellectual content, and final approval of the published work. CLMD contributed to the study design, analysis, drafting of the manuscript, critical revisions, and final approval of the published work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Amy J. Markowitz or Christine L. Mac Donald.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Williams reports Grants from Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation Fellowship, Grants from Adler Giersch Law Firm Endowed Fund for Traumatic Brain Injury Research, outside the submitted work. Mr. Nieblas-Bedolla has nothing to disclose. Dr. Feroze has nothing to disclose. Dr. Young has nothing to disclose. Dr. Temkin reports Grants from US Federal Government, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Giacino reports other funding from University of California at San Francisco, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Okonkwo has nothing to disclose. Dr. Manley reports Grants from United States Department of Defense, and a contract from United States Department of Defense/MTEC, Grants from NIH-NINDS, other from United States Department of Energy, other from One Mind, and other from NeuroTruama Sciences LLC, during the conduct of the study; other from National Football League Scientific Advisory Board, outside the submitted work. Mr. Barber has nothing to disclose. Dr. Durfy has nothing to disclose. Ms. Markowitz reports Grants and contracts from US Department of Defense/MTEC, and salary support from United States Department of Energy and One Mind during the conduct of the study. Dr. Yuh reports Grant support through NIH, DoD during the conduct of the study. Dr. Mukherjee reports Grants from NIH, DoD, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Mukherjee has a patent US PTO Serial No. 15/782,005 pending to University of California Regents, and a patent PCT/US No. 20/42811 pending to University of California Regents. Dr. Mac Donald reports Grants from National Institute of Neurological Disorders, Grants from Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

Ethical approval/informed concent

We further confirm adherence to ethical guidelines and investigated whether we needed institutional review board approval, but as this was a retrospective analysis of deidentified patient data, it was deemed “nonhuman subjects” and was not required to have formal institutional review board approval.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is related to the Commentary available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-021-01264-7.

TRACK-TBI Investigators are listed at the end of the article.

This article was updated to correct Esther L. Yuh’s name.

Appendix: TRACK-TBI Investigators

Appendix: TRACK-TBI Investigators

Opeolu Adeoye, MD, University of Cincinnati; Neeraj Badjatia, MD, University of Maryland; Kim Boase, University of Washington; Yelena Bodien, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital; M. Ross Bullock, MD PhD, University of Miami; Randall Chesnut, MD, University of Washington; John D. Corrigan, PhD, ABPP, Ohio State University; Karen Crawford, University of Southern California; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD PhD, University of Pennsylvania; Sureyya Dikmen, PhD, University of Washington; Ann-Christine Duhaime, MD, MassGeneral Hospital for Children; Richard Ellenbogen, MD, University of Washington; V Ramana Feeser, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University; Adam R. Ferguson, PhD, University of California, San Francisco; Brandon Foreman, MD, University of Cincinnati; Raquel Gardner, University of California, San Francisco; Etienne Gaudette, PhD, University of Southern California; Dana Goldman, PhD, University of Southern California; Luis Gonzalez, TIRR Memorial Hermann; Shankar Gopinath, MD, Baylor College of Medicine; Rao Gullapalli, PhD, University of Maryland; J Claude Hemphill, MD, University of California, San Francisco; Gillian Hotz, PhD, University of Miami; Sonia Jain, PhD, University of California, San Diego; C. Dirk Keene, MD PhD, University of Washington; Frederick K. Korley, MD, PhD, University of Michigan; Joel Kramer, PsyD, University of California, San Francisco; Natalie Kreitzer, MD, University of Cincinnati; Harvey Levin, MD, Baylor College of Medicine; Chris Lindsell, PhD, Vanderbilt University; Joan Machamer, MA, University of Washington; Christopher Madden, MD, UT Southwestern; Alastair Martin, PhD, University of California, San Francisco; Thomas McAllister, MD, Indiana University; Michael McCrea, PhD, Medical College of Wisconsin; Randall Merchant, PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University; Lindsay Nelson, PhD, Medical College of Wisconsin; Laura B. Ngwenya, MD, PhD, University of Cincinnati; Florence Noel, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine; Amber Nolan, MD PhD, University of California, San Francisco; Eva Palacios, PhD, University of California, San Francisco; Daniel Perl, MD, Uniformed Services University; Ava Puccio, PhD, University of Pittsburgh; Miri Rabinowitz, PhD, University of Pittsburgh; Claudia Robertson, MD, Baylor College of Medicine; Jonathan Rosand, MD, MSc, Massachusetts General Hospital; Angelle Sander, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine; Gabriella Satris, University of California, San Francisco; David Schnyer, PhD, UT Austin; Seth Seabury, PhD, University of Southern California; Murray Stein, MD MPH, University of California, San Diego; Sabrina Taylor, PhD, University of California, San Francisco; Arthur Toga, PhD, University of Southern California; Alex Valadka, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University; Mary Vassar, RN MS, University of California, San Francisco; Paul Vespa, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; Kevin Wang, PhD, University of Florida; John K. Yue, MD, University of California, San Francisco; Ross Zafonte, Harvard Medical School.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williams, J.R., Nieblas-Bedolla, E., Feroze, A. et al. Prognostic Value of Hemorrhagic Brainstem Injury on Early Computed Tomography: A TRACK-TBI Study. Neurocrit Care 35, 335–346 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-021-01263-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-021-01263-8

Keywords

Navigation