The role of two brain injury biomarkers, GFAP and UCH-L1, for the management of mTBI in the Emergency Department: an observational study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Davide Campagna, Francesca Cucuzza, Giuseppe Fabio Martines, Lorena Amico, Monica Pennisi, Eva Francesca Aiello, Riccardo Polosa, Giuseppe Carpinteri
{"title":"The role of two brain injury biomarkers, GFAP and UCH-L1, for the management of mTBI in the Emergency Department: an observational study.","authors":"Davide Campagna, Francesca Cucuzza, Giuseppe Fabio Martines, Lorena Amico, Monica Pennisi, Eva Francesca Aiello, Riccardo Polosa, Giuseppe Carpinteri","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-04000-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The management of the Emergency Department (ED) of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is currently challenging due to its clinical heterogeneity. The most rapid method to assess brain damage is to perform a brain computed tomography (CT) scan. Stratification scores, as the Canadian CT Head Rule or the New Orleans Criteria, can be used for a quick and safe rule-out for mTBI, but scientific literature highlights how these scores are misused in real life leading to perform useless brain CT scans with radiation exposure, even in patients who do not need it. In the last years, some scientific associations have suggested the use of a biomarker to help clinicians in decision-making in this field. Given these premises, in this study we evaluated the effectiveness of two biomarkers, the glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and the ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), in predicting the necessity of performing a CT scan of the brain in the study population calculated as Negative Predictive Value (NPV) compared to CT scan reports. From January 2023, we enrolled 101 participants with mTBI who underwent a brain CT scan and blood test to assess levels of two biomarkers at the ED of Policlinico Teaching Hospital of Catania, Italy. 17 participants had a positive brain CT scan report. Of these, 13 reported an \"elevated\" levels of biomarkers, and 4 a \"not elevated\" levels leading to an NPV of 86.6%. A specialist neuroradiologist reassessed, in blind, all CT scans leading to the re-evaluation of 9 CT scans, initially reported as positive by the ED radiologist, which were then reassessed as negative. The results yielded an NPV of 100%. Our study suggests that GFAP and UCH-L1 can be effectively used in the management of patients with mTBI for a rapid and safe rule-out of the patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04000-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The management of the Emergency Department (ED) of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is currently challenging due to its clinical heterogeneity. The most rapid method to assess brain damage is to perform a brain computed tomography (CT) scan. Stratification scores, as the Canadian CT Head Rule or the New Orleans Criteria, can be used for a quick and safe rule-out for mTBI, but scientific literature highlights how these scores are misused in real life leading to perform useless brain CT scans with radiation exposure, even in patients who do not need it. In the last years, some scientific associations have suggested the use of a biomarker to help clinicians in decision-making in this field. Given these premises, in this study we evaluated the effectiveness of two biomarkers, the glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and the ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), in predicting the necessity of performing a CT scan of the brain in the study population calculated as Negative Predictive Value (NPV) compared to CT scan reports. From January 2023, we enrolled 101 participants with mTBI who underwent a brain CT scan and blood test to assess levels of two biomarkers at the ED of Policlinico Teaching Hospital of Catania, Italy. 17 participants had a positive brain CT scan report. Of these, 13 reported an "elevated" levels of biomarkers, and 4 a "not elevated" levels leading to an NPV of 86.6%. A specialist neuroradiologist reassessed, in blind, all CT scans leading to the re-evaluation of 9 CT scans, initially reported as positive by the ED radiologist, which were then reassessed as negative. The results yielded an NPV of 100%. Our study suggests that GFAP and UCH-L1 can be effectively used in the management of patients with mTBI for a rapid and safe rule-out of the patients.

两种脑损伤生物标志物GFAP和UCH-L1在急诊科mTBI管理中的作用:一项观察性研究
由于其临床异质性,急诊科(ED)对轻度创伤性脑损伤(mTBI)患者的管理目前具有挑战性。评估脑损伤最快速的方法是进行脑部计算机断层扫描(CT)。分层评分,如加拿大CT头部规则或新奥尔良标准,可以用于快速和安全的mTBI排除,但科学文献强调,这些评分在现实生活中是如何被滥用的,导致进行无用的脑CT扫描与辐射暴露,甚至在患者不需要它。在过去的几年里,一些科学协会建议使用生物标志物来帮助临床医生在这一领域做出决策。考虑到这些前提,在本研究中,我们评估了两种生物标志物的有效性,胶质纤维酸性蛋白(GFAP)和泛素羧基末端水解酶L1 (UCH-L1),在预测研究人群中进行大脑CT扫描的必要性方面,与CT扫描报告相比,计算为阴性预测值(NPV)。从2023年1月开始,我们招募了101名mTBI患者,他们在意大利卡塔尼亚Policlinico教学医院的ED接受了脑CT扫描和血液检查,以评估两种生物标志物的水平。17名参与者的脑CT扫描报告呈阳性。其中,13例报告生物标志物水平“升高”,4例报告生物标志物水平“不升高”,导致NPV为86.6%。一位神经放射专家在盲法下重新评估了所有CT扫描结果,并对9个CT扫描结果进行了重新评估,ED放射科医生最初报告的结果为阳性,随后又被重新评估为阴性。结果产生了100%的净现值。我们的研究表明,GFAP和UCH-L1可以有效地用于mTBI患者的管理,从而快速安全地排除患者。
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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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