Search

Objective This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of retinal imaging in critical care using a novel mobile optical coherence tomography (OCT) device. The Heidelberg SPECTRALIS FLEX module (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) is an OCT unit with a boom arm, enabling ocular OCT assessment in less mobile patients. Design We undertook an evaluation of the feasibility of using the SPECTRALIS FLEX for undertaking ocular OCT images in unconscious and critically ill patients. Setting This study was conducted in the critical care unit of a large tertiary referral unit in the United Kingdom. Participants 13 systemically unwell patients admitted to the critical care unit were purposively sampled to enable evaluation in patients with a range of clinical states. Outcome measures The primary outcome was the feasibility of acquiring clinically interpretable OCT scans on a consecutive series of patients. The standardised scanning protocol included macula-focused OCT, OCT optic nerve head (ONH), OCT angiography (OCTA) of the macula and ONH OCTA. Results OCT images from 13 patients were attempted. The success rates of each scan type are 84% for OCT macula, 76% for OCT ONH, 56% for OCTA macula and 36% for OCTA ONH. The overall mean success rate of scans per patient was 64% (95% CI 46% to 81%). Clinicians reported clinical value in 100% scans which were successfully obtained, including both ruling in and ruling out relevant ocular complications such as corneal thinning, macular oedema and optic disc swelling. The most common causes of failure to achieve clinically interpretable scans were inadequately sustained OCT alignment in delirious patients and a compromised ocular surface due to corneal exposure. Conclusions This prospective evaluation indicates the feasibility and potential clinical value of the SPECTRALIS FLEX OCT system on the critical care unit. Portable OCT systems have the potential to bring instrument-based ophthalmic assessment to critically ill patients, enabling detection and micron-level monitoring of ocular complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of disability, with annual global incidence estimated as 69 million people. Survivors can experience long-term visual changes, altered mental state, neurological deficits and long-term effects that may be associated with mental illness. TBI is prevalent in military personnel due to gunshot wounds, and blast injury. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between evolving visual, biochemical and mental health changes in both military veterans and civilians, suffering from TBI, and detect preliminary indicators of prognosis for TBI recovery, and quality-of-life outcomes., Methods and Analysis: UNTANGLE is a 24-month prospective observational pilot study recruiting three patient groups: civilians with acute moderate-severe TBI, military veterans with diagnosis of a previous TBI and a control group of civilians or veterans with no history of a previous TBI. Patients will undergo visual, biochemical and mental health assessments, as well as patient-reported quality of life outcome measures over the course of a 1-year follow-up period., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales with a REC reference number of 23/NW/0203. The results of the study will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals, including both civilian and military-related publications. We will also present our findings at national and international meetings of learnt neuroscience and neuropsychiatry and military societies. We anticipate that our pilot study will inform a larger study on the long-term outcomes of TBI and quality of life, specific to military veterans, such that potential interventions may be accessed as quickly as possible., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13276511., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To understand commonalities and differences in injured patient experiences of accessing and receiving quality injury care across three lower-income and middle-income countries., Design: A qualitative interview study. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and thematically analysed., Setting: Urban and rural settings in Ghana, South Africa and Rwanda., Participants: 59 patients with musculoskeletal injuries., Results: We found five common barriers and six common facilitators to injured patient experiences of accessing and receiving high-quality injury care. The barriers encompassed issues such as service and treatment availability, transportation challenges, apathetic care, individual financial scarcity and inadequate health insurance coverage, alongside low health literacy and information provision. Facilitators included effective information giving and informed consent practices, access to health insurance, improved health literacy, empathetic and responsive care, comprehensive multidisciplinary management and discharge planning, as well as both informal and formal transportation options including ambulance services. These barriers and facilitators were prevalent and shared across at least two countries but demonstrated intercountry and intracountry (between urbanity and rurality) variation in thematic frequency., Conclusion: There are universal factors influencing patient experiences of accessing and receiving care, independent of the context or healthcare system. It is important to recognise and understand these barriers and facilitators to inform policy decisions and develop transferable interventions aimed at enhancing the quality of injury care in sub-Saharan African nations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of craniotomy, compared with decompressive craniectomy (DC) in UK patients undergoing evacuation of acute subdural haematoma (ASDH)., Design: Economic evaluation undertaken using health resource use and outcome data from the 12-month multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Patients Undergoing Evacuation-ASDH trial., Setting: UK secondary care., Participants: 248 UK patients undergoing surgery for traumatic ASDH were randomised to craniotomy (N=126) or DC (N=122)., Interventions: Surgical evacuation via craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or DC (bone flap left out with a view to replace later: cranioplasty surgery)., Main Outcome Measures: In the base-case analysis, costs were estimated from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Outcomes were assessed via the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (cost-utility analysis) and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (cost-effectiveness analysis). Multiple imputation and regression analyses were conducted to estimate the mean incremental cost and effect of craniotomy compared with DC. The most cost-effective option was selected, irrespective of the level of statistical significance as is argued by economists., Results: In the cost-utility analysis, the mean incremental cost of craniotomy compared with DC was estimated to be -£5520 (95% CI -£18 060 to £7020) with a mean QALY gain of 0.093 (95% CI 0.029 to 0.156). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean incremental cost was estimated to be -£4536 (95% CI -£17 374 to £8301) with an OR of 1.682 (95% CI 0.995 to 2.842) for a favourable outcome on the GOSE., Conclusions: In a UK population with traumatic ASDH, craniotomy was estimated to be cost-effective compared with DC: craniotomy was estimated to have a lower mean cost, higher mean QALY gain and higher probability of a more favourable outcome on the GOSE (though not all estimated differences between the two approaches were statistically significant)., Ethics: Ethical approval for the trial was obtained from the North West-Haydock Research Ethics Committee in the UK on 17 July 2014 (14/NW/1076)., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN87370545., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No support from any organisation other than the National Institute for Health and Care Research was received for the submitted work. BAG has received consulting fees from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. AGK is supported by a Senior Lectureship at the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, the Wellcome Trust, and the Royal College of Surgeons of England. MW has received support for attending meetings and/or travel for presentations with the Wilderness Medical Society and Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, is a member of the Trauma Clinical Reference group for the NHS, meetings secretary for the Society of British Neurosurgeons and a non-salaried medical director of GoodSAM. PJH is supported by a Research professorship and Senior Investigator award from the NIHR, the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and the Royal College of Surgeons of England., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)