Predicting Clinically Significant Brain Injuries Following Mild TBI: A Comparative Study of Canadian CT Head Rule and New Orleans Criteria at a National Trauma Centre.

Main Article Content

Selekeowei Peter Kespi Kpuduwei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9941-6414
Ayodeji Salman Yusuf https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6002-8641
Nasiru Jinjiri Ismail https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7166-5734
Jamiu Ayodele Adebiyi https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4198-4288

Keywords

Nigeria., Traumatic Brain Injury, Computed Tomography, Canadian CT head rule, New Orleans Criteria, Mild TBI, Clinical Decison Rules, Predictive values

Abstract

Background: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is one of the most common injuries treated at any trauma centre. Whereas the general use of CT for all patients with mTBI is inefficient and wasteful, the omission of a clinically important brain injury is not desirable. Several guidelines have been developed to assist physicians in determining who actually needs a head CT. For this reason, the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and the New Orleans Criteria (NOC) were compared in this study on their efficacy in predicting surgically significant brain injuries and the need for neurosurgical intervention.


Methodology: The research was a prospective cross-sectional study at a level 1 trauma centre that received ethical approval from the Hospital. Consenting adult patients who presented with mild TBI within 24 hours were recruited. They were assessed with the NOC and CCHR, whose decisions were compared with each other and with CT head findings.


Results: A total of 103 patients were successfully enrolled, males were 91 and females were 12, with a mean age of 32.48±12.27 years old. The NOC guideline had a sensitivity (88.6%), specificity (21.4%), positive predictive value (47.0%) and negative predictive value (70.6%) of clinically significant brain injury; while CCHR guideline showed sensitivity (86.4%), specificity (30.4%), positive predictive value (49.4%) and negative predictive value (73.9%)  of clinically significant brain injury (table 3), however, statistically were not significantly different with P-value of 0.39. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the two guidelines for the need for neurosurgical intervention, as the P-value was 0.48.


Conclusion: Following the findings, this study suggests that either NOC or CCHR is safe to be used for ordering a head CT for patients with mild TBI.

Abstract 62 | PDF Downloads 50 EPUB Downloads 34

References

1. Blennow K, Brody DL, Kochanek PM, Levin H, McKee A, Ribbers GM, et al. Traumatic brain injuries. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2016 Nov 17;2.
2. Bouida W, Marghli S, Souissi S, Ksibi H, Methammem M, Haguiga H, et al. Prediction Value of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for Positive Head CT Scan and Acute Neurosurgical Procedures in Minor Head Trauma: A Multicenter External Validation Study. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;61:521–7. Available from: www.annemergmed.com.
3. Chobdari N, Davood Sharifi M, Kakhki BR, Shamsaei S, Disfani HF, Hashemian AM. Evaluation of sensitivity and the specificity of Canadian CT head rule and New Orleans criteria in patients with head injury. Australas Med J. 2018;11(3)
4. Kavalci C, Aksel G, Salt O, Yilmaz MS, Demir A, Kavalci G, et al. Comparison of the Canadian CT head rule and the new orleans criteria in patients with minor head injury. World J Emerg Surg. 2014 Apr 17;9(1).
5. Kinyua J. The Canadian Head CT Rule ; A Hospital Audit. Ann African Surg. 2018;15(2):57–61.
6. Lo WS., Shih YN, Leung CS., Cheung LW., Leung M, Heung HC., et al. A retrospective study of patients with minor head injury to compare the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2016;23(1):25–32.
7. Marshall S, Bayley M, Mccullagh S, Velikonja D, Berrigan L, Ouchterlony D, et al. Updated clinical practice guidelines for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury and persistent symptoms. J Brain Inj. 2015;29(6):688–700.
8. Mata-Mbemba D, Mugikura S, Nakagawa A, Murata T, Kato Y, Tatewaki Y, et al. Canadian CT head rule and New Orleans Criteria in mild traumatic brain injury: comparison at a tertiary referral hospital in Japan. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):176.
9. Papa L, Stiell IG, Clement CM, Pawlowicz A, Wolfram A, Braga C, et al. Performance of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for Predicting Any Traumatic Intracranial Injury on Computed Tomography in a United States Level I Trauma Center. Acad Emerg Med [Internet]. 2012;19(1):2–10.
10. Smits M, Dippel DWJ, De Haan GG, Dekker HM, Vos PE, Kool DR, et al. External validation of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(12):1519–25.
11. Stiell IG, Clement CM, Rowe BH, Schull MJ, Brison R, Cass D, et al. Comparison of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria in patients with minor head injury. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(12):1511–8.
12. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001;357(9266):1391–6.
13. Svensson S, Vedin T, Clausen L, Larsson PA, Edelhamre M. Application of NICE or SNC guidelines may reduce the need for computerized tomographies in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: A retrospective chart review and theoretical application of five guidelines. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27(1):99.
14. Trevethan R. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. Front Public Heal 5307. 2017;5(307):1–7.