Top

Published in:

01-03-2022 | Central Nervous System Trauma | Original work

Predicting Clinical Outcomes 7–10 Years after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Exploring the Prognostic Utility of the IMPACT Lab Model and Cerebrospinal Fluid UCH-L1 and MAP-2

Authors: Adrian M. Svingos, Steven A. Robicsek, Ronald L. Hayes, Kevin K. Wang, Claudia S. Robertson, Gretchen M. Brophy, Linda Papa, Andrea Gabrielli, H. Julia Hannay, Russell M. Bauer, Shelley C. Heaton

Published in: Neurocritical Care | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major contributor to disability and mortality in the industrialized world. Outcomes of severe TBI are profoundly heterogeneous, complicating outcome prognostication. Several prognostic models have been validated for acute prediction of 6-month global outcomes following TBI (e.g., morbidity/mortality). In this preliminary observational prognostic study, we assess the utility of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) Lab model in predicting longer term global and cognitive outcomes (7–10 years post injury) and the extent to which cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers enhance outcome prediction.

Methods

Very long-term global outcome was assessed in a total of 59 participants (41 of whom did not survive their injuries) using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended and Disability Rating Scale. More detailed outcome information regarding cognitive functioning in daily life was collected from 18 participants surviving to 7–10 years post injury using the Cognitive Subscale of the Functional Independence Measure. A subset (n = 10) of these participants also completed performance-based cognitive testing (Digit Span Test) by telephone. The IMPACT lab model was applied to determine its prognostic value in relation to very long-term outcomes as well as the additive effects of acute CSF ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) and microtubule associated protein 2 (MAP-2) concentrations.

Results

The IMPACT lab model discriminated favorable versus unfavorable 7- to 10-year outcome with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80. Higher IMPACT lab model risk scores predicted greater extent of very long-term morbidity (β = 0.488 p = 0.000) as well as reduced cognitive independence (β = − 0.515, p = 0.034). Acute elevations in UCH-L1 levels were also predictive of lesser independence in cognitive activities in daily life at very long-term follow-up (β = 0.286, p = 0.048). Addition of two CSF biomarkers significantly improved prediction of very long-term neuropsychological performance among survivors, with the overall model (including IMPACT lab score, UCH-L1, and MAP-2) explaining 89.6% of variance in cognitive performance 7–10 years post injury (p = 0.008). Higher acute UCH-L1 concentrations were predictive of poorer cognitive performance (β = − 0.496, p = 0.029), whereas higher acute MAP-2 concentrations demonstrated a strong cognitive protective effect (β = 0.679, p = 0.010).

Conclusions

Although preliminary, results suggest that existing prognostic models, including models with incorporation of CSF markers, may be applied to predict outcome of severe TBI years after injury. Continued research is needed examining early predictors of longer-term outcomes following TBI to identify potential targets for clinical trials that could impact long-ranging functional and cognitive outcomes.

Available only for authorised users

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance Report of Traumatic Brain Injury-related Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths-United States, 2014. Centers Dis Control Prev US Dep Heal Hum Serv. 2019;24. Available from: www.cdc.gov/TraumaticBrainInjury

Ruff RM, Marshall LF, Crouch J, Klauber MR, Levin HS, Barth J, et al. Predictors of outcome following severe head trauma: follow-up data from the Traumatic Coma Data Bank. Brain Inj. 1993;7:101–11. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699059309008164.CrossRefPubMed

Kaplan CP. The relationship between cognition and functional independence in adults with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:643.CrossRefPubMed

Draper K, Ponsford J. Cognitive functioning ten years following traumatic brain injury and rehabilitation. Neuropsychology. 2008;22:618–25.CrossRefPubMed

Jourdan C, Bayen E, Pradat-Diehl P, Ghout I, Darnoux E, Azerad S, et al. A comprehensive picture of 4-year outcome of severe brain injuries. Results from the PariS-TBI study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;59:100–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2015.10.009.CrossRefPubMed

Colantonio A, Ratcliff G, Chase S, Kelsey S, Escobar M, Vernich L. Long-term outcomes after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil England. 2004;26:253–61.CrossRef

Devitt R, Colantonio A, Dawson D, Teare G, Ratcliff G, Chase S. Prediction of long-term occupational performance outcomes for adults after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil England. 2006;28:547–59.CrossRef

Dikmen SS, Corrigan JD, Levin HS, Machamer J, Stiers W, Weisskopf MG. Cognitive outcome following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2009;24:430–8.CrossRefPubMed

Gautschi OP, Huser MC, Smoll NR, Maedler S, Bednarz S, von Hessling A, et al. Long-term neurological and neuropsychological outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;115:2482–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2013.09.038.CrossRef

10.

Dismuke CE, Walker RJ, Egede LE. Utilization and cost of health services in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;7:156–69.PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008;5:1251–61.CrossRef

12.

Marmarou A, Lu J, Butcher I, McHugh GS, Mushkudiani NA, Murray GD, et al. IMPACT database of traumatic brain injury: design and description. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:239–50. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2006.0036.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dadas A, Washington J, Diaz-Arrastia R, Janigro D. Biomarkers in traumatic brain injury (TBI): a review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:2989–3000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Jackson P, Thompson RJ. The demonstration of new human brain-specific proteins by high- resolution two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. J Neurol Sci. 1981;49:429–38.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tongaonkar P, Chen L, Lambertson D, Ko B, Madura K. Evidence for an interaction between ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes and the 26S proteasome. Mol Cell Biol. 2000;20:4691–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Kobeissy FH, Ottens AK, Zhang Z, Liu MC, Denslow ND, Dave JR, et al. Novel differential neuroproteomics analysis of traumatic brain injury in rats. Mol Cell Proteom. 2006;5:1887–98. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M600157-MCP200.CrossRef

17.

Liu MC, Akinyi L, Scharf D, Mo J, Larner SF, Muller U, et al. Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 as a biomarker for ischemic and traumatic brain injury in rats. Eur J Neurosci. 2010;31:722–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Papa L, Akinyi L, Liu MC, Pineda JA, Tepas JJ, Oli MW, et al. Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase is a novel biomarker in humans for severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:138–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Siman R, Toraskar N, Dang A, Mcneil E, McGarvey M, Plaum J, et al. A panel of neuron-enriched proteins as markers for traumatic brain injury in humans. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26:1867–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Brophy GM, Mondello S, Papa L, Robicsek SA, Gabrielli A, Tepas J, et al. Biokinetic analysis of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) in severe traumatic brain injury patient biofluids. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:861–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Czeiter E, Mondello S, Kovacs N, Sandor J, Gabrielli A, Schmid K, et al. Brain injury biomarkers may improve the predictive power of the IMPACT outcome calculator. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:1770–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.2127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Sánchez C, Díaz-Nido J, Avila J. Phosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2) and its relevance for the regulation of the neuronal cytoskeleton function. Prog Neurobiol. 2000;61:133–68.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Park D, Joo SS, Lee HJ, Choi K-C, Kim SU, Kim Y-B. Microtubule-associated protein 2, an early blood marker of ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci Res. 2012;90:461–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.22769.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Rice D, Wang KKW, Robicsek S. Biomarkers of traumatic brain injury in the geriatric population. Curr Transl Geriatr Gerontol Rep. 2012;1:129–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-012-0022-5.CrossRef

25.

Papa L, Robicsek SA, Brophy GM, Wang KKW, Hannay HJ, Heaton S, et al. Temporal profile of microtubule-associated protein 2: a novel indicator of diffuse brain injury severity and early mortality after brain trauma. J Neurotrauma. 2017;35:32–40. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2017.4994.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Mondello S, Gabrielli A, Catani S, D’Ippolito M, Jeromin A, Ciaramella A, et al. Increased levels of serum MAP-2 at 6-months correlate with improved outcome in survivors of severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2012;26:1629–35.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Leterrier JF, Kurachi M, Tashiro T, Janmey PA. MAP2-mediated in vitro interactions of brain microtubules and their modulation by cAMP. Eur Biophys J. 2009;38:381–93.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Teng J, Takei Y, Harada A, Nakata T, Chen J, Hirokawa N. Synergistic effects of MAP2 and MAP1B knockout in neuronal migration, dendritic outgrowth, and microtubule organization. J Cell Biol. 2001;155:65–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Papa L, Robertson CS, Wang KKW, Brophy GM, Hannay HJ, Heaton S, et al. Biomarkers improve clinical outcome predictors of mortality following non-penetrating severe traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2014;22:52–64.CrossRef

30.

Honeybul S, Ho KM, Lind CRP, Gillett GR. Validation of the CRASH model in the prediction of 18-month mortality and unfavorable outcome in severe traumatic brain injury requiring decompressive craniectomy. J Neurosurg. 2014;120:1131–7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.1.JNS131559.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Birle C, Slavoaca D, Muresanu I, Chira D, Vacaras V, Stan AD, et al. The effect of cerebrolysin on the predictive value of baseline prognostic risk score in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. J Med Life. 2020;13:283–8.PubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Moore NA, Brennan PM, Baillie JK. Wide variation and systematic bias in expert clinicians’ perceptions of prognosis following brain injury. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27:340–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2012.754402.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, Edwards P, Komolafe E, Poccock S, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. Br Med J. 2008;336:425–9.CrossRef

34.

Pettigrew LEL, Wilson JTL, Teasdale GM. Reliability of ratings on the Glasgow outcome scales from in-person and telephone structured interviews. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2003;18:252–8.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Levin HS, Boake C, Song J, McCauley S, Contant C, Diaz-Marchan P, et al. Validity and sensitivity to change of the extended Glasgow outcome scale in mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2001;18:575–84. https://doi.org/10.1089/089771501750291819.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow outcome scale and the extended Glasgow outcome scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15:573–85. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.1998.15.573.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Weir J, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, Lu J, Lingsma HF, McHugh GS, et al. Does the extended Glasgow outcome scale add value to the conventional Glasgow outcome scale? J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:53–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.2137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Wilde EA, Whiteneck GG, Bogner J, Bushnik T, Cifu DX, Dikmen S, et al. Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1650-1660.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Rappaport M, Hall KM, Hopkins K, Belleza T, Cope DN. Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63:118–23.PubMed

40.

Hall KM, Bushnik T, Lakisic-Kazazic B, Wright J, Cantagallo A. Assessing traumatic brain injury outcome measures for long-term follow-up of community-based individuals. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:367–74.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Gouvier WD, Blanton PD, LaPorte KK, Nepomuceno C. Reliability and validity of the Disability Rating Scale and the Levels of Cognitive Functioning Scale in monitoring recovery from severe head injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil United States. 1987;68:94–7.

42.

Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Greenwood RJ, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology United States. 2001;57:639–44.CrossRef

43.

Hawley CA, Taylor R, Hellawell DJ, Pentland B. Use of the functional assessment measure (FIM+FAM) in head injury rehabilitation: a psychometric analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;67:749–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Shukla D, Devi BI, Agrawal A. Outcome measures for traumatic brain injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;113:435–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.02.013.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Tepper S, Beatty P, DeJong G. Outcomes in traumatic brain injury: self-report versus report of significant others. Brain Inj England. 1996;10:575–81.CrossRef

46.

Turner-Stokes L, Nyein K, Turner-Stokes T, Gatehouse C. The UK FIM+FAM: development and evaluation. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:277–87. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921599676896799.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Hammond FM, Hart T, Bushnik T, Corrigan JD, Sasser H. Change and predictors of change in communication, cognition, and social function between 1 and 5 years after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19:314–28.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Mathias JL, Wheaton P. Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: a meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology. 2007;21:212–23.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Wilson RS, Bennett DA. Assessment of cognitive decline in old age with brief tests amenable to telephone administration. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085309.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III. San Antonio: Psychol. Corp; 1997.

51.

Masel BE, DeWitt DS. Traumatic brain injury: a disease process, not an event. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27:1529–40.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Honeybul S, Ho KM. Predicting long-term neurological outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury requiring decompressive craniectomy: a comparison of the CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models. Injury. 2016;47:1886–92.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Harrison-Felix CL, Whiteneck GG, Jha A, DeVivo MJ, Hammond FM, Hart DM. Mortality over four decades after traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1506–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.03.015.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Harrison-Felix CL, Whiteneck G, Devivo M, Hammond FM, Jha A. Mortality following rehabilitation in the traumatic brain injury model systems of care. NeuroRehabilitation. 2004;19:45–54.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Baguley I, Slewa-Younan S, Lazarus R, Green A. Long-term mortality trends in patients with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2000;14:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/026990500120420.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Kox M, Pompe JC, Pickkers P, Hoedemaekers CW, van Vugt AB, van der Hoeven JG. Increased vagal tone accounts for the observed immune paralysis in patients with traumatic brain injury. Neurology. 2008;70:480–5.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Lingsma HF, Roozenbeek B, Li B, Lu J, Weir J, Butcher I, et al. Large between-center differences in outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in the international mission on prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury (IMPACT) study. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:601–7 (discussion 607-8).CrossRefPubMed

58.

Till C, Colella B, Verwegen J, Green RE. Postrecovery cognitive decline in adults with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:S25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.07.004.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Niemeier JP, Marwitz JH, Lesher K, Walker WC, Bushnik T. Gender differences in executive functions following traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2007;17:293–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010600814729.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Millis SR, Rosenthal M, Novack TA, Sherer M, Nick TG, Kreutzer JS, et al. Long-term neuropsychological outcome after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001;16:343–55.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Bhandari M, Lochner H, Tornetta P. Effect of continuous versus dichotomous outcome variables on study power when sample sizes of orthopaedic randomized trials are small. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002;122:96–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020100347.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Nichol AD, Higgins AM, Gabbe BJ, Murray LJ, Cooper DJ, Cameron PA. Measuring functional and quality of life outcomes following major head injury: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42:281–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.047.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Metze K. Dichotomization of continuous data—a pitfall in prognostic factor studies. Pathol Res Pract. 2008;204:213–4.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Alali AS, Vavrek D, Barber J, Dikmen S, Nathens AB, Temkin NR. Comparative study of outcome measures and analysis methods for traumatic brain injury trials. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:581–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2014.3495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Gasquoine PG. Blissfully unaware: anosognosia and anosodiaphoria after acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2016;26:261–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1011665.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Johnson GV, Jope RS. The role of microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP-2) in neuronal growth, plasticity, and degeneration. J Neurosci Res United States. 1992;33:505–12.CrossRef

67.

Boto GR, Gómez PA, De La Cruz J, Lobato RD. Severe head injury and the risk of early death. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77:1054–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Treggiari MM, Schutz N, Yanez ND, Romand JA. Role of intracranial pressure values and patterns in predicting outcome in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Neurocrit Care. 2007;6:104–12.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, Lu J, Mushkudiani NA, Maas AIR, et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24:329–37.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Thelin E, Al Nimer F, Frostell A, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Nyström H, et al. A Serum protein biomarker panel improves outcome prediction in human traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36:2850–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

71.

Carter EL, Hutchinson PJA, Kolias AG, Menon DK. Predicting the outcome for individual patients with traumatic brain injury: a case-based review. Br J Neurosurg. 2016;30:227–32. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2016.1139048.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Ponsford J, McLaren A, Schönberger M, Burke R, Rudzki D, Olver J, et al. The association between apolipoprotein E and traumatic brain injury severity and functional outcome in a rehabilitation sample. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:1683–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2010.1623.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Corrigan JD, Harrison-Felix C, Bogner J, Dijkers M, Terrill MS, Whiteneck G. Systematic bias in traumatic brain injury outcome studies because of loss to follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:153–60.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Corrigan JD, Bogner JA, Mysiw WJ, Clinchot D, Fugate L. Systematic bias in outcome studies of persons with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:132–7.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Ponsford J, Olver JH, Curran C, Ng K. Prediction of employment status 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1995;9:11–20. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699059509004566.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Svingos AM, Asken BM, Jaffee MS, Bauer RM, Heaton SC. Predicting long-term cognitive and neuropathological consequences of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: review and theoretical framework. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2019;00:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1620695.CrossRef

Title: Predicting Clinical Outcomes 7–10 Years after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Exploring the Prognostic Utility of the IMPACT Lab Model and Cerebrospinal Fluid UCH-L1 and MAP-2
Authors: Adrian M. Svingos
Steven A. Robicsek
Ronald L. Hayes
Kevin K. Wang
Claudia S. Robertson
Gretchen M. Brophy
Linda Papa
Andrea Gabrielli
H. Julia Hannay
Russell M. Bauer
Shelley C. Heaton
Publication date: 01-03-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Central Nervous System Trauma
Biomarkers
Published in: Neurocritical Care / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1541-6933
Electronic ISSN: 1556-0961
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01461-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Predicting Clinical Outcomes 7–10 Years after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Exploring the Prognostic Utility of the IMPACT Lab Model and Cerebrospinal Fluid UCH-L1 and MAP-2

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Ultrasound Perfusion Imaging for the Detection of Cerebral Hypoperfusion After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Cerebral Blood Flow and Oxygen Delivery in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Relation to Neurointensive Care Targets

Prognosis Predictions by Families, Physicians, and Nurses of Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: Agreement and Accuracy

Correction to: Cerebral Blood Flow and Oxygen Delivery in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Relation to Neurointensive Care Targets

Trends in Admissions and Outcomes for Treatment of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in the United States

Safety and Efficacy of Vinpocetine as a Neuroprotective Agent in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis