Decompressive Craniectomy Practice following Traumatic Brain Injury in Comparison with Randomized Trials: Harmonized, Multi-Center Cohort Studies in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia

High quality evidence shows decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) may improve survival but increase the number of severely disabled survivors. Contemporary international practice is unknown. We sought to describe international use of DC, and the alignment with evidence and clinical practice guidelines, by analyzing the harmonized Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) and Australia-Europe NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (OzENTER-TBI) core study datasets, which include patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia between 2015 and 2017. Outcomes of interest were treatment with DC relative to clinical trial evidence and the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines. Of 2336 people admitted to ICUs following TBI, DC was performed in 320 (13.7%): in 64/1422 (4.5%) patients with diffuse TBI and 195/640 (30.5%) patients with traumatic mass lesions. Secondary DC (for treatment of intracranial hypertension) was used infrequently in patients who met enrollment criteria of the two randomized clinical trials informing the guidelines-specifically, in 11/124 (8.9%) of those matching Decompressive Craniectomy in Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury trial (DECRA) enrollment, and in 30/224 (13.4%) of those matching Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp). Of patients who underwent DC, 258/320 (80.6%) were ineligible for either trial: 149/320 (46.6%) underwent primary DC, 62/320 (19.4%) were outside the trials' age criteria, and 126/320 (39.4%) did not develop intracranial hypertension refractory to non-operative therapies prior to DC. Secondary DC was used infrequently in patients in whom it had been shown to increase survival with severe disability, indicating alignment between contemporaneous evidence and practice. However, most patients who underwent DC were ineligible for the key trials; whether they benefited from DC remains unknown.