IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14311-d960702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value of Repeat CT Brain in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients with High Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Progression

Author

Listed:
  • Farizal Fadzil

    (Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Amy Khor Cheng Mei

    (Department of Surgery, Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah, Klang 41200, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Azudin Mohd Khairy

    (Department of Surgery, Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah, Klang 41200, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Ramesh Kumar

    (Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

  • Anis Nabillah Mohd Azli

    (Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)

Abstract

Patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), particularly those at higher risk of having ICH progression, are typically prescribed a second head Computer Tomography (CT) scan to monitor the disease development. This study aimed to evaluate the role of a repeat head CT in MTBI patients at a higher risk of ICH progression by comparing the intervention rate between patients with and without ICH progression. Methods: 192 patients with MTBI and ICH were treated between November 2019 to December 2020 at a single level II trauma center. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was used to classify MTBI, and initial head CT was performed according to the Canadian CT head rule. Patients with a higher risk of ICH progression, including the elderly (≥65 years old), patients on antiplatelets or anticoagulants, or patients with an initial head CT that revealed EDH, contusional bleeding, or SDH > 5 mm, and multiple ICH underwent a repeat head CT within 12 to 24 h later. Data regarding types of intervention, length of stay in the hospital, and outcome were collected. The risk of further neurological deterioration and readmission rates were compared between these two groups. All patients were followed up in the clinic after one month or contacted via phone if they did not return. Results: 189 patients underwent scheduled repeated head CT, 18% had radiological intracranial bleed progression, and 82% had no changes. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of intervention rate, risk of neurological deterioration in the future, or readmission between them. Conclusion: Repeat head CT in mild TBI patients with no neurological deterioration is not recommended, even in patients with a higher risk of ICH progression.

Suggested Citation

  • Farizal Fadzil & Amy Khor Cheng Mei & Azudin Mohd Khairy & Ramesh Kumar & Anis Nabillah Mohd Azli, 2022. "Value of Repeat CT Brain in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients with High Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Progression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14311-:d:960702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14311/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14311/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14311-:d:960702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.