Clinical Assessment on Days 1-14 for the Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury: Recommendations from the 2024 NINDS Traumatic Brain Injury Classification and Nomenclature Initiative Clinical/Symptoms Working Group.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurotrauma Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-20 DOI:10.1089/neu.2024.0577
David K Menon, Noah D Silverberg, Adam R Ferguson, Thomas J Bayuk, Shubhayu Bhattacharyay, David L Brody, Scott A Cota, Ari Ercole, Anthony Figaji, Guoyi Gao, Christopher C Giza, Fiona Lecky, Rebekah Mannix, Ana Mikolić, Kasey E Moritz, Claudia S Robertson, Abel Torres-Espin, Spyridoula Tsetsou, John K Yue, Hibah O Awad, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Adele Doperalski, Andrew I R Maas, Michael A McCrea, Nsini Umoh, Geoffrey T Manley
{"title":"Clinical Assessment on Days 1-14 for the Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury: Recommendations from the 2024 NINDS Traumatic Brain Injury Classification and Nomenclature Initiative Clinical/Symptoms Working Group.","authors":"David K Menon, Noah D Silverberg, Adam R Ferguson, Thomas J Bayuk, Shubhayu Bhattacharyay, David L Brody, Scott A Cota, Ari Ercole, Anthony Figaji, Guoyi Gao, Christopher C Giza, Fiona Lecky, Rebekah Mannix, Ana Mikolić, Kasey E Moritz, Claudia S Robertson, Abel Torres-Espin, Spyridoula Tsetsou, John K Yue, Hibah O Awad, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Adele Doperalski, Andrew I R Maas, Michael A McCrea, Nsini Umoh, Geoffrey T Manley","doi":"10.1089/neu.2024.0577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) primarily uses the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to categorize injuries as mild (GCS 13-15), moderate (GCS 9-12), or severe (GCS ≤8). However, this system is unsatisfactory, as it overlooks variations in injury severity, clinical needs, and prognosis. A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (USA) recommended updating the classification system, leading to a workshop in 2024 by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. This resulted in the development of a new clinical, biomarker, imaging, and modifier (CBI-M) framework, with input from six working groups, including the Clinical/Symptoms Working Group (CSWG). The CSWG included both clinical and non-clinical experts and was informed by individuals with lived experience of TBI and public consultation. The CSWG primarily focused on acute clinical assessment of TBI in hospital settings, with discussion and recommendations based on pragmatic expert reviews of literature. Key areas reviewed included: assessment of neurological status; performance-based assessment tools; age and frailty, pre-existing comorbidities, and prior medication; extracranial injuries; neuroworsening; early physiological insults; and physiological monitoring in critical care. This article reports their discussions and recommendations. The CSWG concluded that the GCS remains central to TBI characterization but must include detailed scoring of eye, verbal, and motor components, with identification of confounding factors and clear documentation of non-assessable components. Pupillary reactivity should be documented in all patients, but recorded separately from the GCS, rather than as an integrated GCS-Pupils score. At ceiling scores on the GCS (14/15), history of loss of consciousness (LoC) and the presence and duration of post-traumatic amnesia should be recorded using validated tools, and acute symptoms documented in patients with a GCS verbal score of 4/5 using standardized rating scales. Additional variables to consider for a more complete characterization of TBI include injury mechanism, acute physiological insults and seizures; and biopsychosocial-environmental factors (comorbidities, age, frailty, socioeconomic status, education, and employment). The CSWG recommended that, for a complete characterization of TBI, disease progression/resolution should be monitored over 14 days. While there was a good basis for the recommendations listed above, evidence for the use of other variables is still emerging. These include: detailed documentation of neurological deficits, vestibulo-oculomotor dysfunction, cognition, mental health symptoms, and (for hospitalized patients) data-driven integrated measures of physiological status and therapy intensity. These recommendations are based on expert consensus due to limited high-quality evidence. Further research is needed to validate and refine these guidelines, ensuring they can be effectively integrated into the CBI-M framework and clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16512,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurotrauma","volume":" ","pages":"1038-1055"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2024.0577","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) primarily uses the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to categorize injuries as mild (GCS 13-15), moderate (GCS 9-12), or severe (GCS ≤8). However, this system is unsatisfactory, as it overlooks variations in injury severity, clinical needs, and prognosis. A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (USA) recommended updating the classification system, leading to a workshop in 2024 by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. This resulted in the development of a new clinical, biomarker, imaging, and modifier (CBI-M) framework, with input from six working groups, including the Clinical/Symptoms Working Group (CSWG). The CSWG included both clinical and non-clinical experts and was informed by individuals with lived experience of TBI and public consultation. The CSWG primarily focused on acute clinical assessment of TBI in hospital settings, with discussion and recommendations based on pragmatic expert reviews of literature. Key areas reviewed included: assessment of neurological status; performance-based assessment tools; age and frailty, pre-existing comorbidities, and prior medication; extracranial injuries; neuroworsening; early physiological insults; and physiological monitoring in critical care. This article reports their discussions and recommendations. The CSWG concluded that the GCS remains central to TBI characterization but must include detailed scoring of eye, verbal, and motor components, with identification of confounding factors and clear documentation of non-assessable components. Pupillary reactivity should be documented in all patients, but recorded separately from the GCS, rather than as an integrated GCS-Pupils score. At ceiling scores on the GCS (14/15), history of loss of consciousness (LoC) and the presence and duration of post-traumatic amnesia should be recorded using validated tools, and acute symptoms documented in patients with a GCS verbal score of 4/5 using standardized rating scales. Additional variables to consider for a more complete characterization of TBI include injury mechanism, acute physiological insults and seizures; and biopsychosocial-environmental factors (comorbidities, age, frailty, socioeconomic status, education, and employment). The CSWG recommended that, for a complete characterization of TBI, disease progression/resolution should be monitored over 14 days. While there was a good basis for the recommendations listed above, evidence for the use of other variables is still emerging. These include: detailed documentation of neurological deficits, vestibulo-oculomotor dysfunction, cognition, mental health symptoms, and (for hospitalized patients) data-driven integrated measures of physiological status and therapy intensity. These recommendations are based on expert consensus due to limited high-quality evidence. Further research is needed to validate and refine these guidelines, ensuring they can be effectively integrated into the CBI-M framework and clinical practice.

外伤性脑损伤特征1-14天的临床评估:来自2024年NINDS外伤性脑损伤分类和命名倡议临床/症状工作组的建议
目前的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)分类主要使用格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)将损伤分为轻度(GCS 13-15)、中度(GCS 9-12)或重度(GCS≤8)。然而,该系统并不令人满意,因为它忽略了损伤严重程度、临床需要和预后的变化。美国国家科学院、工程院和医学院最近的一份报告建议更新分类系统,并于2024年由国家神经疾病和中风研究所举办了一次研讨会。这导致了一个新的临床、生物标志物、成像和修饰剂(CBI-M)框架的发展,包括临床/症状工作组(CSWG)在内的六个工作组提供了意见。CSWG包括临床和非临床专家,并由有创伤性脑损伤生活经验的个人和公众咨询提供信息。CSWG主要关注医院环境中创伤性脑损伤的急性临床评估,并根据务实的专家文献评论进行讨论和提出建议。审查的重点领域包括:神经状态评估;绩效评估工具;年龄和体弱多病、已有的合并症和既往用药;颅外的伤害;neuroworsening;早期生理损伤;以及重症监护的生理监测。本文报道了他们的讨论和建议。CSWG得出结论,GCS仍然是TBI表征的核心,但必须包括眼睛,语言和运动成分的详细评分,识别混杂因素和明确记录不可评估的成分。瞳孔反应性应在所有患者中记录,但与GCS分开记录,而不是作为综合GCS-瞳孔评分。在GCS评分上限(14/15)时,应使用经过验证的工具记录意识丧失史(LoC)以及创伤后遗忘的存在和持续时间,并使用标准化评定量表记录GCS口头评分为4/5的患者的急性症状。为了更完整地描述TBI,需要考虑的其他变量包括损伤机制、急性生理损伤和癫痫发作;以及生物-心理-社会-环境因素(合并症、年龄、虚弱、社会经济地位、教育和就业)。CSWG建议,为了完整地描述TBI,应监测疾病进展/消退超过14天。虽然上面列出的建议有很好的基础,但使用其他变量的证据仍在不断出现。这些包括:神经功能缺陷、前庭-动眼肌功能障碍、认知、心理健康症状的详细记录,以及(住院患者)生理状态和治疗强度的数据驱动综合测量。由于高质量证据有限,这些建议基于专家共识。需要进一步的研究来验证和完善这些指南,确保它们能够有效地整合到CBI-M框架和临床实践中。
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
Journal of neurotrauma
Journal of neurotrauma 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
233
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Neurotrauma is the flagship, peer-reviewed publication for reporting on the latest advances in both the clinical and laboratory investigation of traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. The Journal focuses on the basic pathobiology of injury to the central nervous system, while considering preclinical and clinical trials targeted at improving both the early management and long-term care and recovery of traumatically injured patients. This is the essential journal publishing cutting-edge basic and translational research in traumatically injured human and animal studies, with emphasis on neurodegenerative disease research linked to CNS trauma.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信