Evidence Hub

Evaluation of Outcomes Among Patients With Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension Treated With Decompressive Craniectomy vs Standard Medical Care at 24 Months: A Secondary Analysis of the RESCUEicp Randomized Clinical Trial

A. Kolias, Hadie Adams, I. Timofeev, E. Corteen, I. Hossain, M. Czosnyka, J. Timothy, Ian A. Anderson et al.

JAMA Neurology, 2022

408 participants · 92 citations

Abstract

Importance

Trials often assess primary outcomes of traumatic brain injury at 6 months. Longer-term data are needed to assess outcomes for patients receiving surgical vs medical treatment for traumatic intracranial hypertension.

Objective

To evaluate 24-month outcomes for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension treated with decompressive craniectomy or standard medical care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prespecified secondary analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of Surgery With Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp) randomized clinical trial data was performed for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension (>25 mm Hg) from 52 centers in 20 countries. Enrollment occurred between January 2004 and March 2014. Data were analyzed between 2018 and 2021. Eligibility criteria were age 10 to 65 years, traumatic brain injury (confirmed via computed tomography), intracranial pressure monitoring, and sustained and refractory elevated intracranial pressure for 1 to 12 hours despite pressure-controlling measures. Exclusion criteria were bilateral fixed and dilated pupils, bleeding diathesis, or unsurvivable injury.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a decompressive craniectomy with standard care (surgical group) or to ongoing medical treatment with the option to add barbiturate infusion (medical group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was measured with the 8-point Extended Glasgow Outcome…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 408 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free