• Juliette Amzallag, Jacques Ropers, Eimad Shotar, Bertrand Mathon, Alice Jacquens, Vincent Degos, and Rémy Bernard.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, DMU DREAM, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France. juliette.amzallag@aphp.fr.
• Neurocrit Care. 2023 Oct 1; 39 (2): 455463455-463.

BackgroundPredicting functional outcome in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) strongly influences end-of-life decisions and information for surrogate decision makers. Despite well-validated prognostic models, clinicians most often rely on their subjective perception of prognosis. In this study, we aimed to compare physicians' predictions with the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) prognostic model for predicting an unfavorable functional outcome at 6 months after moderate or severe TBI.MethodsPREDICT-TBI is a prospective study of patients with moderate to severe TBI. Patients were admitted to a neurocritical care unit and were excluded if they died or had withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments within the first 24 h. In a paired study design, we compared the accuracy of physician prediction on day 1 with the prediction of the IMPACT model as two diagnostic tests in predicting unfavorable outcome 6 months after TBI. Unfavorable outcome was assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale from 1 to 3 by using a structured telephone interview. The primary end point was the difference between the discrimination ability of the physician and the IMPACT model assessed by the area under the curve.ResultsOf the 93 patients with inclusion and exclusion criteria, 80 patients reached the primary end point. At 6 months, 29 patients (36%) had unfavorable outcome. A total of 31 clinicians participated in the study. Physicians' predictions showed an area under the curve of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.89), against 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.69-0.91) for the laboratory IMPACT model, with no statistical difference (p = 0.88). Both approaches were well calibrated. Agreement between physicians was moderate (κ = 0.56). Lack of experience was not associated with prediction accuracy (p = 0.58).ConclusionsPredictions made by physicians for functional outcome were overall moderately accurate, and no statistical difference was found with the IMPACT models, possibly due to a lack of power. The significant variability between physician assessments suggests prediction could be improved through peer reviewing, with the support of the IMPACT models, to provide a realistic expectation of outcome to families and guide discussions about end-of-life decisions.© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.

17 keywords...

hide…