iPad-Based Neurocognitive Testing (ImPACT-QT) in Acute Adult Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion: Study on Practicality and Bedside Cognitive Scores in a Level-1 Trauma Center.

Patrick M Chen, Sean Lee, Lillian D Cruz, Michael Lopez, Aaron Thomas, Jefferson W Chen, A. Grigorian, J. Nahmias, M. Lekawa
{"title":"iPad-Based Neurocognitive Testing (ImPACT-QT) in Acute Adult Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion: Study on Practicality and Bedside Cognitive Scores in a Level-1 Trauma Center.","authors":"Patrick M Chen, Sean Lee, Lillian D Cruz, Michael Lopez, Aaron Thomas, Jefferson W Chen, A. Grigorian, J. Nahmias, M. Lekawa","doi":"10.1177/00031348241246168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThere lacks rapid standardized bedside testing to screen cognitive deficits following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment & Cognitive Testing-Quick Test (ImPACT-QT) is an abbreviated-iPad form of computerized cognitive testing. The aim of this study is to test ImPACT-QT utility in inpatient settings. We hypothesize ImPACT-QT is feasible in the acute trauma setting.\n\n\nMETHOD\nTrauma patients ages 12-70 were administered ImPACT-QT (09/2022-09/2023). Encephalopathic/medically unstable patients were excluded. Mild traumatic brain injury was defined as documented-head trauma with loss-of-consciousness <30 minutes and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15. Patients answered Likert-scale surveys. Bivariate analyses compared demographics, attention, motor speed, and memory scores between mTBI and non-TBI controls. Multivariable logistic regression assessed memory score as a predictor of mTBI diagnosis.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf 233 patients evaluated (36 years [IQR 23-50], 71% [166/233] female), 179 (76%) were mTBI patients. For all patients, mean test-time was 9.3 ± 2 minutes with 93% (73/76) finding the test \"easy to understand.\" Mild traumatic brain injury patients than non-TBI control had lower memory scores (25 [IQR 7-100] vs 43 [26-100], P = .001) while attention (5 [1-23] vs 11 [1-32]) and motor score (14 [3-28] vs 13 [4-32]) showed no significant differences. Multivariable-regression (adjustment: age, sex, race, education level, ISS, and time to test) demonstrated memory score predicted mTBI positive status (OR .96, CI .94-.98, P = .004).\n\n\nDISCUSSION\nImmediate Post-Concussion Assessment & Cognitive Testing-Quick Test is feasible in trauma patients. Preliminary findings suggest acute mTBIs have lower memory but not attention/motor scores vs non-TBI trauma controls.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"12 1","pages":"31348241246168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241246168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND There lacks rapid standardized bedside testing to screen cognitive deficits following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment & Cognitive Testing-Quick Test (ImPACT-QT) is an abbreviated-iPad form of computerized cognitive testing. The aim of this study is to test ImPACT-QT utility in inpatient settings. We hypothesize ImPACT-QT is feasible in the acute trauma setting. METHOD Trauma patients ages 12-70 were administered ImPACT-QT (09/2022-09/2023). Encephalopathic/medically unstable patients were excluded. Mild traumatic brain injury was defined as documented-head trauma with loss-of-consciousness <30 minutes and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15. Patients answered Likert-scale surveys. Bivariate analyses compared demographics, attention, motor speed, and memory scores between mTBI and non-TBI controls. Multivariable logistic regression assessed memory score as a predictor of mTBI diagnosis. RESULTS Of 233 patients evaluated (36 years [IQR 23-50], 71% [166/233] female), 179 (76%) were mTBI patients. For all patients, mean test-time was 9.3 ± 2 minutes with 93% (73/76) finding the test "easy to understand." Mild traumatic brain injury patients than non-TBI control had lower memory scores (25 [IQR 7-100] vs 43 [26-100], P = .001) while attention (5 [1-23] vs 11 [1-32]) and motor score (14 [3-28] vs 13 [4-32]) showed no significant differences. Multivariable-regression (adjustment: age, sex, race, education level, ISS, and time to test) demonstrated memory score predicted mTBI positive status (OR .96, CI .94-.98, P = .004). DISCUSSION Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment & Cognitive Testing-Quick Test is feasible in trauma patients. Preliminary findings suggest acute mTBIs have lower memory but not attention/motor scores vs non-TBI trauma controls.
基于 iPad 的神经认知测试 (ImPACT-QT) 在急性成人轻度创伤性脑损伤/脑震荡中的应用:一级创伤中心的实用性和床边认知评分研究。
背景缺乏快速的标准化床旁测试来筛查轻度创伤性脑损伤(mTBI)后的认知障碍。脑震荡后即时评估与认知测试--快速测试(ImPACT-QT)是一种简易的电脑认知测试。本研究旨在测试 ImPACT-QT 在住院环境中的实用性。我们假设 ImPACT-QT 在急性创伤环境中是可行的。方法12-70 岁的创伤患者接受 ImPACT-QT 测试(09/2022-09/2023)。排除了脑病/病情不稳定的患者。轻度脑外伤的定义是:有记录的头部外伤,意识丧失时间小于 30 分钟,到达格拉斯哥昏迷量表 13-15 级。患者回答李克特量表调查问卷。双变量分析比较了创伤性脑损伤和非创伤性脑损伤对照组的人口统计学、注意力、运动速度和记忆力评分。结果 在接受评估的 233 名患者(36 岁 [IQR 23-50],71% [166/233] 女性)中,有 179 人(76%)是 mTBI 患者。所有患者的平均测试时间为 9.3 ± 2 分钟,93%(73/76)的患者认为测试 "易于理解"。轻度脑损伤患者的记忆得分(25 [IQR 7-100] vs 43 [26-100],P = .001)低于非轻度脑损伤对照组,而注意力(5 [1-23] vs 11 [1-32])和运动得分(14 [3-28] vs 13 [4-32])则无显著差异。多变量回归(调整:年龄、性别、种族、教育水平、ISS 和测试时间)表明,记忆得分可预测 mTBI 阳性状态(OR .96, CI .94-.98, P = .004)。初步研究结果表明,与未受创伤的对照组相比,急性 mTBI 患者的记忆力评分较低,但注意力/运动评分却不低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信