Retrospective observational study demonstrates dual MRI lesions predict poor functional recovery in diffuse axonal injury, highlighting the prognostic value of brainstem and callosal damage.
INTRODUCTION: Early prediction of long-term functional outcome after diffuse axonal injury (DAI) remains controversial. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study, axonal injuries on MRI were correlated with long-term functional outcome. The predictive value of poor functional outcome (GOSE < 5) was determined by ROC analysis for clinical factors and location of combinations of DAI lesions in the connectome. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, 451 patients underwent MRI within 30 days of severe blunt TBI of which 322 (71.4%) survived to = 6-month clinical follow-up. The mean age was 38.4 and 242 (75%) patients were male. Mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle crash (53%) and falls (26%). Mean Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score was 4.7. At 6-24 months, quality MRI and functional outcome data were available for 213 and 104 patients, respectively. The best single-area predictors of early and late long-term functional outcome were the ventral midbrain (AUC6mo 0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.74), p = 0.010) and dorsal pons (AUC24mo 0.68 (95% CI 0.51-0.86) p = 0.001). The best multiple-lesion predictors of poor long-term functional outcome (GOSE < 5) were dorsal pons and splenium of corpus callosum (AUC24mo 0.92 (95% CI 0.84-0.99), p < 0.0001) and the dorsal and ventral pons (AUC24mo 0.91 (95% CI 0.79-1.00), p < 0.0001). The strength of these combinations’ predictive value was not improved by considering three or more areas. The 6-area cluster of internal capsule, corpus callosum genu, body, and splenium; and dorsal and ventral midbrain lesions was a good predictor of outcome at 24 months (AUC24mo 0.82 (95% CI 0.66-0.98), p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe TBI, the strongest predictors of poor long-term functional outcome were combined lesions in the splenium and dorsal pons and the dorsal and ventral pons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walek et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: