Evaluation of GFAP and UCH-L1 using a rapid point of care test for predicting head computed tomography lesions after mild traumatic brain injury in a Dutch multicenter cohort

Walid Chayoua,Koen Visser,Myrte de Koning,Joukje van der Naalt,Rein IJmker,Albertus Beishuizen,Johannes Krabbe,Harm Jan van der Horn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2023.0491
IF: 4.869
2024-02-09
Journal of Neurotrauma
Abstract:Background: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common condition seen in emergency departments worldwide. Blood-based biomarkers glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) are recently FDA approved for the prediction of intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT) scans in mTBI. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of GFAP and UCH-L1 in a Dutch cohort using the i-STAT TBI assay. Methods: In a multicenter observational study we enrolled 253 mTBI patients. Head CT scans were scored using the Marshall classification system. Logistic regression models were used to assess the contribution of biomarkers and clinical parameters to diagnostic performance. Results: Detection of UCH-L1 and GFAP resulted in a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 19% for CT positivity in mTBI patients, along with a negative predictive value of 95% (88-100%) and a positive predictive value of 27% (21-33%). Combining biomarker testing with loss of consciousness (LOC) and time to sample increased specificity to 46%. Combined testing of UCH-L1 and GFAP testing resulted in possibly more unnecessary CT scans compared to GFAP testing alone, with only limited increase in sensitivity. Conclusions: This study confirmed high sensitivity of GFAP and UCH-L1 for CT abnormalities in mTBI patients using the i-STAT TBI test. The results support the potential use of GFAP and UCH-L1 as tools for determining the indication for CT scanning in mTBI patients, possibly offering a cost- and time-effective approach to management of patients with mTBI. Prospective studies in larger cohorts are warranted to validate our findings.
neurosciences,clinical neurology,critical care medicine
What problem does this paper attempt to address?