Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com/bij
ISSN: 0269-9052 (print), 1362-301X (electronic)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Yvelines, Versailles, France, 3Unité ER 6 UPMC, Paris, France, 4Centre Ressources Francilien du Traumatisme Crânien (CRFTC), APHP Hôpital
Broussais, Paris, France, 5Unité de Recherche Clinique (URC), APHP Hôpital A Paré, Boulogne, France, 6Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France,
7
Service de Médecine Physique et Réadaptation, APHP Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France, 8Département d’Anesthésiologie, Soins
intensifs & SAMU, APHP Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France, 9Département d’Anesthésiologie, Soins intensifs, APHP Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-
Salpêtrière, Paris, France, 10Département d’Anesthésiologie & Soins intensifs, APHP Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France, and 11SAMU 77,
Mobile Care Unit, Hôpital Marc Jacquet, Melun, France
Abstract Keywords
Objectives: To assess outcome and predicting factors 1 year after a severe traumatic brain injury Brain injury, craniocerebral trauma, disability,
(TBI). dysexecutive questionnaire, outcome
Methods: Multi-centre prospective inception cohort study of patients aged 15 or older with a
For personal use only.
severe TBI in the Parisian area, France. Data were collected prospectively starting the day of History
injury. One-year evaluation included the relatives-rating of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire
(DEX-R), the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) and employment. Univariate and Received 28 August 2012
multivariate tests were computed. Revised 26 March 2013
Results: Among 257 survivors, 134 were included (mean age 36 years, 84% men). Good recovery Accepted 7 April 2013
concerned 19%, moderate disability 43% and severe disability 38%. Among patients employed Published online 30 May 2013
pre-injury, 42% were working, 28% with no job change. DEX-R score was significantly
associated with length of education only. Among initial severity measures, only the IMPACT
prognostic score was significantly related to GOSE in univariate analyses, while measures
relating to early evolution were more significant predictors. In multivariate analyses,
independent predictors of GOSE were length of stay in intensive care (LOS), age and
education. Independent predictors of employment were LOS and age.
Conclusions: Age, education and injury severity are independent predictors of global disability
and return to work 1 year after a severe TBI.
The present study was part of a larger regional prospective ‘Return-to-work’ was defined as being employed in a
inception cohort study called Severe Traumatic Brain Injury regular professional (paid or volunteer) activity. Type of
in the Parisian area (PariS-TBI), which was undertaken in return-to-work was categorized into return to former full-time
2005 in Paris city and its suburbs (11.6 million inhabitants, job on one side and job change (adaptation of work time or of
12 000 km2) [14, 15]. Consecutive patients were included by occupation) on the other.
all mobile emergency services of the area over a 22-month
period. Criteria for inclusion were patients aged 15 or more
Statistical analyses
with a severe TBI (lowest Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score
[16] 8 before hospital admission, in the absence of other Patients’ characteristics were described by mean and standard
causes of coma). Data from intensive care units to home deviation (SD) or median (25–75th percentiles) for continu-
discharge were collected prospectively in all participating ous variables and counts and percentages for categorical
For personal use only.
complete data. Multicollinearity was evaluated by calculating measures (GCS score, IMPACT prognosis score, time to
a variance inflation factor. The multivariate model for GOSE follow command, length of stay in intensive care, disability at
category used the proportional odds logistic methodology intensive care discharge), gender, age or history of alcohol
[18]. The equal slope proportional odds assumption of abuse. Professional status showed a significant difference
proportional model was checked by using graphical analysis. (p50.05); patients were more often lost to follow-up if they
All factors found to be significant in univariate analyses were were non-active pre-injury (56%), as compared to other
included as explanatory factors, except time to follow professional categories (26–41%). Rates of lost to follow-up
command and disability at intensive care discharge, which were higher for violence-related traumas than for road traffic
would have induced multicollinearity, and an important accidents (p ¼ 0.03).
sample size reduction because of missing data. The discrim- At the time of evaluation 124 patients (93%) were living at
inative performances of the logistic models were measured home. Global outcome on the GOSE is shown in Table I.
via the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic
(ROC) curve, represented by the C-index for the binary model Table I. Patients’ characteristics and global outcome (n ¼ 134).
and by the generalized C-index for the ordinal model [19].
Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) and their 95% Confidence Mean Count Missing
Intervals (CI) were computed. (SD) (%) data (%)
Brain Inj Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by SUNY Upstate Medical University on 08/20/14
Students 27 (20%)
Results Initial Glasgow Coma Scale 5.7 (1.8) 1%
Initial prognostic score (IMPACT) 0.6 (0.2) 0%
Among the 257 acute care survivors, 134 (52%) were Time to follow command (days) 12.0 (11.2) 13%
Length of stay in intensive 26.9 (22.9) 0%
included for the 1-year follow-up assessment (Figure 1).
care (days)
The most common reasons for being lost-to-follow-up Disability at intensive care
(n ¼ 123) were administrative reasons (unknown discharge discharge
destination, homeless, move abroad or erroneous address), Vegetative State 2 (2%) 11%
Severe disability 56 (47%)
death or refusal to answer. Median time since injury at follow- Moderate disability 30 (25%)
up evaluation was 14.3 months (25–75th percentiles ¼ 13.1– Good recovery 31 (26%)
23.4 months). In the study sample, mean age at the time of One year GOSE score
injury was 36.0 (SD ¼ 16.3), 84% were men. Main trauma Vegetative state 2 (2%) 0%
Lower severe disability 13 (10%)
mechanisms were road traffic accidents for 98 patients (73%) Upper severe disability 37 (28%)
and falls for 29 (22%). Mean initial GCS score was 5.7 Lower moderate disability 37 (28%)
(SD ¼ 1.8). Other patients’ characteristics are summarized in Upper moderate disability 20 (15%)
Table I. Lower good recovery 21 (16%)
Upper good recovery 4 (3%)
Comparison of patients lost to follow-up to patients who
were evaluated reached no significance as to severity SD, Standard Deviation; GOSE, Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended.
Correlation Correlation
coefficienta Mean SE p Value coefficienta -squareb Dfb p Value
Age groups 0.03 0.6 Age groups 0.23 0.002
Genderb Gender 1.00 1 0.3
Male 23.2 1.5 0.8 Pre-injury alcohol abuse 0.71 1 0.4
Female 22.3 3.8 Years of education 0.18 50.01
Pre-injury alcoholb Initial Glasgow Coma Scale 0.14 0.05
Yes 24.1 3.4 0.7 Initial prognostic score 0.17 50.01
No 22.6 1.6 (IMPACT)
Years of education 0.20 0.002 Time to follow command 0.21 0.002
Initial Glasgow Coma Scale 0.01 0.8 (days)
Initial prognostic score 0.03 0.7 Length of stay in intensive 0.31 50.00001
(IMPACT) care (days)
Time to follow command 0.11 0.1 Disability at intensive care 0.32 50.0001
(days) discharge
Length of stay in intensive 0.07 0.2
care (days) GOSE, Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended; df, Degrees of freedom. Age
Brain Inj Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by SUNY Upstate Medical University on 08/20/14
Disability at intensive 0.10 0.2 groups ¼ younger than 30, 30–45, 45 or older. aKendall’s correlation.
b
care discharge results of Cochran-Armitage test.
Figure 2. (a) Association between age and Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended score for the whole study sample. (b) Association between age and
return-to-work rates for pre-injury employed patients.
For personal use only.
of brain injury severity. Bennett et al. [26] found no have been validated recently on large cohorts to predict either
association between family ratings of DEX scores and early death or early death and severe disability after mixed-
length of post-traumatic amnesia in patients who were still severity TBI [3, 4]. The results suggest that these models
receiving in-hospital rehabilitation. This finding is not really could also predict later disability in survivors from severe
surprising, as it has repeatedly been found that neuropsycho- TBI. Scores based on these models had a better prognostic
logical testing within patients with severe TBI is poorly value than GCS alone, which did not reach statistical
correlated with measures of initial injury severity [16]. significance. As the prognosis value of initial GCS for late
Moreover, several authors reported weak or non-significant outcome appears inconsistent [6, 11], these models offer new
correlations between proxy ratings of the DEX and executive opportunities in the prediction of late outcome upon hospital
impairments in standard neuropsychological evaluation [25, admission.
27–29], whereas ratings by professionals involved in the Baseline severity characteristics had, however, weaker
rehabilitation process showed higher correlation with TBI prognosis values in univariate and multivariate analyses than
severity and executive testings [26]. DEX-R score seemed to subsequent evolution characteristics, such as time to follow
be related to global 1-year disability rather than TBI early command and particularly length of stay in intensive care or
severity. Proxy ratings of the DEX could also be predomin- disability upon intensive care discharge. Similar findings have
antly related to difficulties in patient–proxies interaction, as been reported before [11, 21, 31–34], illustrating the need for
previous findings in this sample showed that DEX scores further research to include standardized variables obtained
were significantly and independently associated with proxies’ during the clinical course in prognosis modelling [2].
burden of care [15]. The favourable role of education duration has been found
The association between DEX-R score and educational in previous studies on post-TBI return-to-work [12, 34, 35],
level was expected, as education plays a role in most cognitive although inconsistently [7, 31, 32], and on home and social
function evaluations. Its effect was, however, small, explain- integration [36]. In this study, education duration was
ing only 5% of the variance of the DEX-R score. In the significantly associated with the GOSE score, independently
general population, Gerstorf et al. [30] also found a relatively of other variables. These findings are in accordance with
small effect of educational level on the self-assessed DEX previous reports on the role of socio-demographic variables
score, while trait anxiety explained 30% of its variance. A on outcomes which are not directly dependant from the
similar study in the TBI population would be interesting, in subject’s environment, such as early death and disability [37].
order to quantify the impact of various factors on the DEX-R The lack of association between education and employ-
score, including assessments of mood and affect. ment was surprising, considering previous literature results
Most severity measures significantly influenced 1-year [12, 34, 35] and considering the significant association with
disability and return-to-work in this study, although the PariS- global disability, which was closely related to vocational
TBI study had included patients with exclusively severe TBI outcome. One explanation could be the type of employment
(initial GCS 8). Prognostic models based on admission data that persons with a higher educational level are liable to
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2013.794971 One-year outcome after severe TBI 1005
Table IV. Prognostic factors for return-to-work (n ¼ 81 employed pre-injury).*
Age groups ¼ younger than 30, 30–45, 45 or older. SE, standard error. aResults of ANOVAs. bResults of chi square test. cResults of Cochran-
Armitage test.
For personal use only.
younger subjects. These findings strongly suggest that age has with the support of Unité de Recherche Clinique Paris-Ouest.
a major influence on post-TBI return-to-work. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
The strengths of this study lie in its well-defined,
homogeneous population of patients with a severe TBI in a References
unique geographical area and a limited time-period. 1. Maas AI, Stocchetti N, Bullock R. Moderate and severe traumatic
The evaluation was prospective over more than a year post- brain injury in adults. Lancet Neurology 2008;7:728–741.
TBI and the unique outcome assessor ensured the homogen- 2. Lingsma HF, Roozenbeek B, Steyerberg EW,
eity of assessments over the sample. Integration of Murray GD, Maas AIR. Early prognosis in traumatic brain
injury: From prophecies to predictions. Lancet Neurology 2010;9:
recently recommended prognosis scores and statistical meth- 543–554.
odology [42], including the use of multivariate analyses, 3. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J,
enabled one to assess the independent prognostic value of McHugh GS, Murray GD, Marmarou A, Roberts I, Habbema
JDF, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury:
several factors.
Development and international validation of prognostic scores
One limitation is the important proportion of lost to based on admission characteristics. PLoS Medicine 2008;5:e165;
follow-up patients. The TBI population is difficult to follow discussion e165.
and to contact after the injury [43]. The Parisian area has a 4. Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, Edwards P, Komolafe E, Poccock S,
Roberts I, Shakur H, Steyerberg E, Yutthakasemsunt S. Predicting
wide variety of places of care and drains population from outcome after traumatic brain injury: Practical prognostic models
Brain Inj Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by SUNY Upstate Medical University on 08/20/14
various regions and countries, which were additional reasons based on large cohort of international patients. British Medical
explaining the difficulties encountered in contacting the Journal 2008;336:425–429.
whole sample after 1 year. Lost to follow-up patients did not 5. Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for
the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome
significantly differ from included patients in terms of TBI Scale: Guidelines for their use. Journal of Neurotrauma 1998;15:
severity, but presented more frequently than the included 573–585.
patients some socio-demographic characteristics which could 6. van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CAM, Edelaar MJA, Sluiter JK,
have a deleterious influence on outcome [44]: assault-related Frings-Dresen MHW. Prognostic factors of return to work after
acquired brain injury: A systematic review. Brain Injury 2009;23:
TBI or lack of pre-injury employment. Consequently, it is 385–395.
probable that socially vulnerable patients were under- 7. Andelic N, Stevens LF, Sigurdardottir S, Arango-Lasprilla JC,
represented in the present study, which could lead to a bias Roe C. Associations between disability and employment 1 year
towards a slightly over-optimistic rating of late outcome and after traumatic brain injury in a working age population. Brain
Injury 2012;26:261–269.
For personal use only.
towards an under-estimation of the role of social vulnerability 8. Ownsworth T, McKenna K. Investigation of factors related to
on outcome. employment outcome following traumatic brain injury: A critical
In conclusion, the 1-year follow-up of this prospective review and conceptual model. Disability and Rehabilitation 2004;
inception cohort of patients with severe TBI showed 19% of 26:765–783.
9. Levack WMM, Kayes NM, Fadyl JK. Experience of recovery and
good recovery, 43% of moderate and 38% of severe disability. outcome following traumatic brain injury: A metasynthesis of
Among patients employed pre-injury, 42% returned to work, qualitative research. Disability and Rehabilitation 2010;32:
but only 28% without any job change. The proxy rating of the 986–999.
10. Crépeau F, Scherzer P. Predictors and indicators of work status after
DEX was not significantly associated with TBI severity and
traumatic brain injury: A meta-analysis. Neuropsychological
was significantly related to education duration. GOSE score Rehabilitation 1993;3:5–35.
was not significantly associated with initial GCS, but with the 11. Willemse-van Son AHP, Ribbers GM, Verhagen AP,
IMPACT prognostic score. In multivariate analyses, inde- Stam HJ. Prognostic factors of long-term functioning and prod-
uctivity after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review of
pendent predictive factors for disability were length of stay in prospective cohort studies. Clinical Rehabilitation 2007;21:
intensive care, older age and length of education. Negative 1024–1037.
predictive factors for return-to-work were length of stay in 12. Schönberger M, Ponsford J, Olver J, Ponsford M, Wirtz M.
intensive care and age. The negative impact of age on GOSE Prediction of functional and employment outcome 1 year after
traumatic brain injury: A structural equation modelling approach.
score and employment seemed to be similar over all age Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2011;82:
classes. 936–941.
13. Tagliaferri F, Compagnone C, Korsic M, Servadei F, Kraus J.
A systematic review of brain injury epidemiology in Europe. Acta
Acknowledgements Neurochirurgica (Wien) 2006;148:255–268; discussion 268.
The authors thank all patients and family participants who 14. Jourdan C, Bayen E, Bosserelle V, Azerad S, Genet F, Fermanian C,
took the time to share their experience and all members of the Aegerter P, Pradat-Diehl P, Weiss J-J, Azouvi P, et al. Referral to
rehabilitation after severe traumatic brain injury: Results from the
CRFTC Steering Committee (Centre Ressource Francilien des PariS-TBI Study. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
Traumatisés Crâniens) for their valuable help. The authors 2013;27:35–44.
also thank Pr Pernot, Dr Dulou, Pr Tadie, Pr Truelle, Dr 15. Bayen E, Pradat-Diehl P, Jourdan C, Ghout I, Bosserelle V,
Welschbillig and Dr Zouaoui for their participation in the Azerad S, Weiss J-J, Joël M-E, Aegerter P, Azouvi P. Predictors
of informal care burden 1 year after a severe traumatic brain
study. injury: Results from the PariS-TBI study. The Journal of Head
Trauma Rehabilitation [Internet] 2012. Available online at:
Declaration of interest http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22691963, accessed 7 May
2013.
This study was funded by a grant of the French Ministry of 16. Azouvi P, Vallat-Azouvi C, Belmont A. Cognitive deficits after
Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2004, traumatic coma. Progress in Brain Research 2009;177:89–110.
17. Burgess PW, Alderman N, Evans J, Emslie H, Wilson BA.
AOM04084), sponsored by AP-HP (Département de la The ecological validity of tests of executive function. Journal of
Recherche Clinique et du Développement) and carried out the International Neuropsychological Society 1998;4:547–558.
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2013.794971 One-year outcome after severe TBI 1007
18. Ananth CV, Kleinbaum DG. Regression models for ordinal value of acute injury characteristics related to complaints and return
responses: A review of methods and applications. International to work. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1999;
Journal of Epidemiology 1997;26:1323–1333. 66:207–213.
19. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to 33. Temkin NR, Holubkov R, Machamer JE, Winn HR, Dikmen SS.
linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Classification and regression trees (CART) for prediction of
Springer; 2001. function at 1 year following head trauma. Journal of
20. van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CAM, Edelaar MJA, Sluiter JK, Neurosurgery 1995;82:764–771.
Frings-Dresen MHW. How many people return to work after 34. Gollaher K, High W, Sherer M, Bergloff P, Boake C, Young ME,
acquired brain injury?: A systematic review. Brain Injury 2009;23: Ivanhoe C. Prediction of employment outcome one to three years
473–488. following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Brain Injury 1998;12:
21. Dikmen SS, Temkin NR, Machamer JE, Holubkov AL, Fraser RT, 255–263.
Winn HR. Employment following traumatic head injuries. Archives 35. Ketchum JM, Almaz Getachew M, Krch D, Baños JH, Kolakowsky-
of Neurology 1994;51:177–186. Hayner SA, Lequerica A, Jamison L, Arango-Lasprilla JC. Early
22. Ruff RM, Marshall LF, Crouch J, Klauber MR, Levin HS, Barth J, predictors of employment outcomes 1 year post traumatic brain
Kreutzer J, Blunt BA, Foulkes MA, Eisenberg HM. Predictors of injury in a population of Hispanic individuals. NeuroRehabilitation
outcome following severe head trauma: Follow-up data from the 2012;30:13–22.
Traumatic Coma Data Bank. Brain Injury 1993;7:101–111. 36. Harrison-Felix C, Zafonte R, Mann N, Dijkers M, Englander J,
23. Bounds TA, Schopp L, Johnstone B, Unger C, Goldman H. Kreutzer J. Brain injury as a result of violence: Preliminary findings
Gender differences in a sample of vocational rehabilitation clients from the traumatic brain injury model systems. Archives of
with TBI. NeuroRehabilitation 2003;18:189–196. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998;79:730–737.
24. Kreutzer JS, Marwitz JH, Walker W, Sander A, Sherer M, Bogner J, 37. Mushkudiani NA, Engel DC, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, Lu J,
Brain Inj Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by SUNY Upstate Medical University on 08/20/14
Fraser R, Bushnik T. Moderating factors in return to work and job Marmarou A, Slieker F, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Maas AIR.
stability after traumatic brain injury. Jornal of Head Trauma Prognostic value of demographic characteristics in traumatic brain
Rehabilitation 2003;18:128–138. injury: Results from the IMPACT study. Journal of Neurotrauma
25. Boelen DHE, Spikman JM, Rietveld ACM, Fasotti L. Executive 2007;24:259–269.
dysfunction in chronic brain-injured patients: Assessment in 38. Walker WC, Marwitz JH, Kreutzer JS, Hart T, Novack TA.
outpatient rehabilitation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2009; Occupational categories and return to work after traumatic brain
19:625–644. injury: A multicenter study. Archives of Physical Medicine and
26. Bennett PC, Ong B, Ponsford J. Measuring executive dysfunction in Rehabilitation 2006;87:1576–1582.
an acute rehabilitation setting: Using the dysexecutive question- 39. Fraser R, Machamer J, Temkin N, Dikmen S, Doctor J. Return to
naire (DEX). Journal of the International Neuropsychological work in traumatic brain injury (TBI): A perspective on capacity for
Society 2005;11:376–385. job complexity. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 2006;25:
27. Chan RCK, Yan C, Qing Y-H, Wang Y, Wang Y-N, Ma Z, 141–148.
Hong X-H, Li Z-J, Gong Q-Y, Yu X. Subjective awareness of 40. Sherer M, Bergloff P, High Jr W, Nick TG. Contribution of
For personal use only.
everyday dysexecutive behavior precedes ‘‘objective’’ executive functional ratings to prediction of longterm employment outcome
problems in schizotypy: A replication and extension study. after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1999;13:973–981.
Psychiatry Research 2011;185:340–346. 41. Keyser-Marcus LA, Bricout JC, Wehman P, Campbell LR, Cifu
28. Chaytor N, Schmitter-Edgecombe M, Burr R. Improving the DX, Englander J, High W, Zafonte RD. Acute predictors of return
ecological validity of executive functioning assessment. Archives to employment after traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal
of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National follow-up. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Academy of Neuropsychologists 2006;21:217–227. 2002;83:635–641.
29. Wood RL, Liossi C. The ecological validity of executive tests in a 42. Maas AIR, Steyerberg EW, Marmarou A, McHugh GS, Lingsma
severely brain injured sample. Archives of Clinical HF, Butcher I, Lu J, Weir J, Roozenbeek B, Murray GD. IMPACT
Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy recommendations for improving the design and analysis of clinical
of Neuropsychologists 2006;21:429–437. trials in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
30. Gerstorf D, Siedlecki KL, Tucker-Drob EM, Salthouse TA. Neurotherapeutics: The Journal of the American Society for
Executive dysfunctions across adulthood: Measurement properties Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 2010;7:127–134.
and correlates of the DEX self-report questionnaire. 43. Sample PL, Langlois JA. Linking people with traumatic brain
Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, injury to services: Successes and challenges in Colorado.
Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition 2008;15:424–445. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2005;20:270–278.
31. Ponsford JL, Olver JH, Curran C, Ng K. Prediction of employment 44. Gary KW, Arango-Lasprilla JC, Ketchum JM, Kreutzer JS,
status 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1995;9: Copolillo A, Novack TA, Jha A. Racial differences in employment
11–20. outcome after traumatic brain injury at 1, 2, and 5 years postinjury.
32. van der Naalt J, van Zomeren AH, Sluiter WJ, Minderhoud JM. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2009;90:
One year outcome in mild to moderate head injury: The predictive 1699–1707.