Background Observational studies have demonstrated improved outcomes in TBI patients receiving in-hospital betablockers. The aim of this study is to conduct a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of beta-blockers on outcomes in TBI patients. Methods Adult patients with severe TBI (intracranial AIS C 3) were included in the study. Hemodynamically stable patients at 24 h after injury were randomized to receive either 20 mg propranolol orally every 12 h up to 10 days or until discharge (BB?) or no propranolol (BB-). Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score on discharge and at 6-month follow-up. Subgroup analysis including only isolated severe TBI (intracranial AIS C 3 with extracranial AIS B 2) was carried out. Poisson regression models were used. Results Two hundred nineteen randomized patients of whom 45% received BB were analyzed. There were no significant demographic or clinical differences between BB ? and BBcohorts. No significant difference in inhospital mortality (adj. IRR 0.6 [95% CI 0.3-1.4], p = 0.2) or long-term functional outcome was measured between the cohorts (p = 0.3). One hundred fifty-four patients suffered isolated severe TBI of whom 44% received BB. The BB ? group had significantly lower mortality relative to the BBgroup (18.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.012). On regression analysis, propranolol had a significant protective effect on in-hospital mortality (adj. IRR 0.32, p = 0.04) and functional outcome at 6-month follow-up (GOS-E C 5 adj. IRR 1.2, p = 0.02). Conclusion Propranolol decreases in-hospital mortality and improves long-term functional outcome in isolated severe TBI. This randomized trial speaks in favor of routine administration of beta-blocker therapy as part of a standardized neurointensive care protocol. Level of evidence Level II; therapeutic.

Background. The lack of enough medical evidence about COVID-19 regarding optimal prevention, diagnosis, and treatment contributes negatively to the rapid increase in the number of cases globally. A chest computerized tomography (CT) scan has been introduced as the most sensitive diagnostic method. Therefore, this research aimed to examine and evaluate the chest CT  scan as a screening measure of COVID-19 in trauma patients. Methods. This cross-sectional study was conducted in Rajaee Hospital in Shiraz from February to May 2020. All patients underwent unenhanced CT with a 16-slice CT scanner. The CT scans were evaluated in a blinded manner, and the main CT scan features were described and classified into four groups according to RSNA recommendation. Subsequently, the first two Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) categories with the highest probability of COVID-19 pneumonia (i.e., typical and indeterminate) were merged into the “positive CT scan group” and those with radiologic features with the least probability of COVID-19 pneumonia into “negative CT scan group.” Results. Chest CT scan had a sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 34.8%, negative predictive value of 83.7%, and accuracy of 59.3% in detecting COVID-19 among trauma patients. Moreover, for the diagnosis of COVID-19 by CT scan in asymptomatic individuals, a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 66.7%, and negative predictive value of 100% were obtained ( p value: 0.05). Conclusion. Findings of the study indicated that the CT scan’s sensitivity and specificity is less effective in diagnosing trauma patients with COVID-19 compared with nontraumatic people.

ObjectivesThe triage of trauma patients with potential COVID-19 remains a major challenge given that a significant number of patients may be asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. This study aimed to compare the specificity and sensitivity of available triage systems for COVID-19 among trauma patients. Furthermore, it aimed to develop a novel triage system for SARS-CoV-2 detection among trauma patients in centers with limited resources.MethodsAll patients referred to our center from February to May 2020 were enrolled in this prospective study. We evaluated the SARS-CoV-2 triage protocols from the WHO, the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME), and the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) for their effectiveness in finding COVID-19 infected individuals among trauma patients. We then used these data to design a stepwise triage protocol to detect COVID-19 positive patients among trauma patients.ResultsAccording to our findings, the WHO protocol showed 100% specificity and 13.3% sensitivity. The MOHME protocol had 99% specificity and 23.3% sensitivity. While the ECDC protocol showed 93.3% sensitivity and 89.5% specificity, it did not prioritize patients based on traumatic injuries and unstable conditions. Our stepwise triage protocol, which prioritizes traumatic injuries, had 93.3% sensitivity and 90.3% specificity.ConclusionOur study shows that the triage protocols from the WHO, MOHME and ECDC are not best equipped to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals among trauma patients. In our proposed stepwise triage system, patients are triaged according to their hemodynamic conditions, COVID-19 related clinical states, and COVID-19 related laboratory findings. Our triage model can lead to more accurate and resource-effective management of trauma patients with potential COVID-19 infection.Level of evidenceLevel Ⅲ.

The elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is associated with poor clinical outcomes, especially in pro-inflammatory states such as surgical injuries and severe hemorrhages. Therefore, it was hypothesized whether NLR value at the time of admission could be a prognostic indicator of hospital mortality in trauma patients. This retrospective cohort study was conducted on 865 trauma patients referred to Rajaee Hospital between April 2016 and July 2019. The NLR value was calculated at the time of admission, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the cut-off point value of admission NLR related to hospital mortality of trauma patients. Furthermore, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models have been applied to determine the effectiveness and prognostic potential of the admission NLR in the hospital mortality of trauma patients. The median age of the trauma patients was 32 years with an interquartile range (IQR) of 23 to 48 years, and most of them were male (83.9%). Also, trauma patients had a median injury severity score (ISS) of 9 (IQR=4-16) and a median Glasgow coma scale (GCS) of 14 (IQR=9-15). The cut-off value for admission NLR was 5.27 (area under the curve: 0.642, 95%CI: 0.559-0.726, p=0.001). In Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the admission NLR>5.27 was an indicator of hospital mortality in trauma patients (p=0.001). Multivariate Cox regression models demonstrated that trauma patients with an admission NLR>5.27 had a 2.33-fold risk of hospital mortality (hazard ratio=2.33, 95%CI: 1.02-5.38, p=0.041). Furthermore, the admission NLR>5.27 was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality in trauma patients with age≥65 years, systolic blood pressure≤90 mmHg, blood potassium>4.5 mmol/L, blood sodium>144 mEq/L, blood potential hydrogen (pH)≤7.28, GCS≤8, ISS>24 and blood base excess≤-6.1 mEq/L. The NLR value greater than 5.27 at the time of admission was associated with poorer outcomes, and it can be considered an independent prognostic indicator of hospital mortality in trauma patients.