Neurotrauma Reports (Mar 2023)

Performance of CRASH and IMPACT Prognostic Models for Traumatic Brain Injury at 12 and 24 Months Post-Injury

  • Shawn R. Eagle,
  • Enyinna Nwachuku,
  • Jonathan Elmer,
  • Hansen Deng,
  • David O. Okonkwo,
  • Matthew Pease

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/NEUR.2022.0082
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 1
pp. 118 – 123

Abstract

Read online

The Corticoid Randomization after Significant Head Injury (CRASH) and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) prognostic models are the most reported prognostic models for traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the scientific literature. However, these models were developed and validated to predict 6-month unfavorable outcome and mortality, and growing evidence supports continuous improvements in functional outcome after severe TBI up to 2 years post-injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate CRASH and IMPACT model performance beyond 6 months post-injury to include 12 and 24 months post-injury. Discriminative validity remained consistent over time and comparable to earlier recovery time points (area under the curve?=?0.77?0.83). Both models had poor fit for unfavorable outcomes, explaining less than one quarter of the variation in outcomes for severe TBI patients. The CRASH model had significant values for the Hosmer-Lemeshow test at 12 and 24 months, indicating poor model fit past the previous validation point. There is concern in the scientific literature that TBI prognostic models are being used by neurotrauma clinicians to support clinical decision making despite the goal of the models' development being to support research study design. The results of this study indicate that the CRASH and IMPACT models should not be used in routine clinical practice because of poor model fit that worsens over time and the large, unexplained variance in outcomes.

Keywords