SGEM#412: I Can’t Choose…from all the Head Injury Prediction Rules

Reference: Easter JS et al. Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE rules for children with minor head injury: a prospective cohort study. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2014. Date: July 10, 2023 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Joe Mullally is a paediatric trainee in the Welsh paediatric training program and interested in Paediatric Emergency Medicine. He is a student in the Paediatric Emergency Medicine Masters Program through Queen Mary University in London in collaboration with the Don’t Forget the Bubbles team. Dr. Joe Mullally Background: Children have big heads proportionally to their body compared to adults which makes them more at risk of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Computerized tomography (CT) is commonly used in the emergency department in the diagnosis of TBI. But we’re always trying to balance the potential harms and potential benefits in medicine. A CT scan does mean radiation to the pediatric brain which can increase the risk of leukemia or brain cancer later [1]. Thankfully, clinically important intracranial injuries are rare in children [2]. So, should we CT scan children with minor head injury? The SGEM covered pediatric concussions and head imaging in SGEM #112 and the NEXUS II Pediatric Head CT Decision Instrument in SGEM #225. Today we’re talking about three other popular clinical decision rules (PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE). But we also want to know, how do those rules compare to physician judgement? Clinical Question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules and physician judgment in identifying clinically important traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in children with minor head injury? Reference: Easter JS et al. Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE rules for children with minor head injury: a prospective cohort study. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2014. Population: Children less than 18 years of age presenting with head injury to a level 2 pediatric trauma center in the United States between 2012-2013. These children have to have 1) history of signs of blunt injury to the head 2) GCS scores ≥13, 3) injury within the previous 24 hours prior to presentation, 4) physician concern for potential TBI Excluded: Heightened TBI risk (GCS<13, brain tumors, ventricular shunts, on anticoagulants, or had bleeding disorders), or if they presented >24 hours after injury Intervention: CT vs no CT Comparison: Comparison of PECARN, CHALICE, CATCH, physician judgement, and physician practice Outcomes: Primary Outcome: “Clinically important TBI” defined as death from TBI, need for neurosurgery, need for intubation >24hrs for TBI, or hospital admission >2 nights for TBI. Secondary Outcomes: TBI on scan TBI requiring neurosurgery (craniotomy, elevation of skull fracture, monitoring of intracranial pressure, or intubation for elevated intracranial pressure) Type of Study: Single center prospective cohort study Authors’ Conclusions: “Of the 5 modalities described (PECARN, CATCH, CHALICE, physician judgment and physician practice), only physician practice and PECARN identified all clinically important TBIs, with PECARN being slightly more specific. CHALICE was incompletely sensitive but the most specific of all rules. CATCH was incompletely sensitive and had the poorest specificity of all modalities.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study:   Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure  Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure  Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Yes Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Fairly precise Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Unsure