Search

Objective: To update the existing CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for detection of (in-tra)cranial findings in adult patients following minor head injury (MHI).Methods: The study is a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands. Consecutive MHI pa-tients of 16 years and older were included. Primary outcome was any (intra)cranial traumatic finding on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes were any potential neurosurgical lesion and neuro-surgical intervention. The CHIP model was validated and subsequently updated and revised. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating the c-statistic. Results: Among 4557 included patients 3742 received a CT (82%). In 383 patients (8.4%) a traumatic find-ing was present on CT. A potential neurosurgical lesion was found in 73 patients (1.6%) with 26 (0.6%) patients that actually had neurosurgery or died as a result of traumatic brain injury. The original CHIP underestimated the risk of traumatic (intra)cranial findings in low-predicted-risk groups, while in high -predicted-risk groups the risk was overestimated. The c-statistic of the original CHIP model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) and it would have missed two potential neurosurgical lesions and one patient that underwent neurosurgery. The updated model performed similar to the original model regarding trau-matic (intra)cranial findings (c-statistic 0.77 95% CI 0.74-0.79, after crossvalidation c-statistic 0.73). The updated CHIP had the same CT rate as the original CHIP (75%) and a similar sensitivity (92 versus 93%) and specificity (both 27%) for any traumatic (intra)cranial finding. However, the updated CHIP would not have missed any (potential) neurosurgical lesions and had a higher sensitivity for (potential) neurosurgi-cal lesions or death as a result of traumatic brain injury (100% versus 96%).Conclusions: Use of the updated CHIP decision rule is a good alternative to current decision rules for patients with MHI. In contrast to the original CHIP the update identified all patients with (potential) neurosurgical lesions without increasing CT rate.(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Objective To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. Design Prospective, multicentre cohort study. Setting Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury. Results For the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold. Conclusions Application of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.