Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38886775›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024

The effect of circle of willis anatomy and scanning practices on outcomes for blunt cerebrovascular injuries.

David Bar-Or, Stephanie Jarvis, Forrester Lensing, David Bassa, Matthew Carrick, Carlos Palacio Lascano, Maxwell Busch, David Hamilton, David Acuna, Samantha Greenseid and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

David Bar-OrSwedish Medical Center, Englewood, CO, USA. davidbme49@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3685-314X
Stephanie JarvisSwedish Medical Center, Englewood, CO, USA.
Forrester LensingSaint Anthony Hospital, Colorado, , Lakewood, United States.
David BassaMedical City Plano, Texas, , Plano, United States.
Matthew CarrickMedical City Plano, Texas, , Plano, United States.
Carlos Palacio LascanoSouth Texas Health System McAllen, Texas, , McAllen, United States.
Maxwell BuschSwedish Medical Center, Englewood, CO, USA.
David HamiltonPenrose Hospital, CO, , Colorado Springs, United States.
David AcunaWesley Medical Center, Kansas, , Wichita, United States.
Samantha GreenseidSwedish Medical Center, Englewood, CO, USA.
Daniel OjalaSaint Anthony Hospital, Colorado, , Lakewood, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited research has explored the effect of Circle of Willis (CoW) anatomy among blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) on outcomes. It remains unclear if current BCVI screening and scanning practices are sufficient in identification of concomitant COW anomalies and how they affect outcomes.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study included adult traumatic BCVIs at 17 level I-IV trauma centers (08/01/2017-07/31/2021). The objectives were to compare screening criteria, scanning practices, and outcomes among those with and without COW anomalies.

resultsOf 561 BCVIs, 65% were male and the median age was 48 y/o. 17% (n = 93) had a CoW anomaly. Compared to those with normal CoW anatomy, those with CoW anomalies had significantly higher rates of any strokes (10% vs. 4%, p = 0.04), ICHs (38% vs. 21%, p = 0.001), and clinically significant bleed (CSB) before antithrombotic initiation (14% vs. 3%, p < 0.0001), respectively. Compared to patients with a normal CoW, those with a CoW anomaly also had ischemic strokes more often after antithrombotic interruption (13% vs. 2%, p = 0.02).Patients with CoW anomalies were screened significantly more often because of some other head/neck indication not outlined in BCVI screening criteria than patients with normal CoW anatomy (27% vs. 18%, p = 0.04), respectively. Scans identifying CoW anomalies included both the head and neck significantly more often (53% vs. 29%, p = 0.0001) than scans identifying normal CoW anatomy, respectively.

conclusionsWhile previous studies suggested universal scanning for BCVI detection, this study found patients with BCVI and CoW anomalies had some other head/neck injury not identified as BCVI scanning criteria significantly more than patients with normal CoW which may suggest that BCVI screening across all patients with a head/neck injury may improve the simultaneous detection of CoW and BCVIs. When screening for BCVI, scans including both the head and neck are superior to a single region in detection of concomitant CoW anomalies. Worsened outcomes (strokes, ICH, and clinically significant bleeding before antithrombotic initiation) were observed for patients with CoW anomalies when compared to those with a normal CoW. Those with a CoW anomaly experienced strokes at a higher rate than patients with normal CoW anatomy specifically when antithrombotic therapy was interrupted. This emphasizes the need for stringent antithrombotic therapy regimens among patients with CoW anomalies and may suggest that patients CoW anomalies would benefit from more varying treatment, highlighting the need to include the CoW anatomy when scanning for BCVI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Prognostic/Epidemiological.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular TraumaCircle of WillisWounds, NonpenetratingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTrauma CentersBlunt cerebrovascular injuryScanning practicesScreening criteriaTrauma

Identifiers

PMID38886775
PMCPMC11181559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.