Observational studyInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
The incidence and outcomes of hyperacute cardiovascular dysfunction following isolated traumatic brain injury: an observational cohort study.
Observational study in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fluid therapy in traumatic brain injury with the resuscitation, optimization, stabilization, and evacuation (ROSE) concept approach.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor: The incidence and outcomes of hyperacute cardiovascular dysfunction following isolated traumatic brain injury: an observational cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between early cardiovascular dysfunction (CVD) in isolated traumatic brain injury (iTBI) and outcome has not been fully described. We aimed to (1) determine the prevalence and phenotype of CVD after iTBI in the hyper-acute phase and (2) compare treatment and outcomes in those with CVD vs non-CVD.
methodsAn observational cohort database study of severe iTBI patients (Head AIS 3+) at a level 1 trauma centre (2008-2019) and physician-led air ambulance service (2019-2020). CV dysfunction was defined as tachycardia or bradycardia, with hypotension. Physiology, laboratory results, 24-hour transfusion, and computer-topography (CT) findings were recorded. Outcomes were 28-day mortality and Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS).
resultsA total of 168 patients met inclusion criteria, average age 46 years (IQR 30-61), 77% male, median ISS 25 (IQR 17-29) with 51% Head AIS 5. Time from injury to pre-hospital assessment was 31 minutes (IQR 20-42) with 20% demonstrating CVD on initial observations. The CVD group were more shocked (lactate 6.1 (1.7-10.9) vs. 2.4 (1.4-3.3), P < 0.001) and coagulopathic (43% vs. 15%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in Head AIS or CT findings between groups, except frequency of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) (CVD: 21% vs. non-CVD: 1%, P < 0.001). 24-hour transfusion was higher in CVD patients: 3 (0-8) vs. 0 (0-0) units, P < 0.001. Mortality was greater in CVD vs non-CVD iTBI (61% vs. 31%, P = 0.002), but in patients with AIS 5 there was no difference ( P = 0.262). One-third of CVD survivors (13/33) were discharged home, and 4/18 patients with recorded GOS had good neurological outcome.
conclusionOne in five patients with severe iTBI develop early CVD, associated with increased mortality, coagulopathy, and HIE. However, mortality and neurological outcome is highly variable in those with CVD across the iTBI severity spectrum. Further research is needed to define the pathophysiology and optimal treatment to improve outcomes for this subgroup of iTBI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.