In previous posts, I proposed several scenarios with elderly patients presenting with subdural hematomas and discussed the use of practice guidelines to help direct their care. The principal conundrum has been in knowing who will do well vs who will not.

Today, I’ll review a paper that examined functional outcome / salvageability in patients with subdural hematomas. It is from a Swiss group that retrospectively reviewed their experience over a six year period. Interestingly, they had specific criteria in place (fifteen years ago) that would limit craniotomy to study patients with:

• A Karnofsky Performance Scale score of 80 or more and living independently. This scale evaluates the ability to carry out activities of daily living using a score of 0 to 100. Scores > 80 indicate that there may be some symptoms of disease, but daily activities can be carried out with some effort or less.
• No known dementia
• No comorbidities that had a survival time of less than 12 months.
• Desire to proceed with surgery and consent to do so.

Patients with fixed, dilated pupils were excluded. Here are the factoids:

• 42 patients older than 65 years presented during the study period, and 37 met inclusion criteria
• 81% of patients had comorbidities and 43% were on some type of anticoagulant or platelet agent
• Median GCS was 8, so these patients had significant head injury
• One third (13) died in the perioperative period, and one quarter experienced nonlethal complications
• Anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents did not appear to affect mortality
• Final Glasgow Outcome Scale scores were favorable (4-5) in 40% and unfavorable to severely disabled (1-3) in 60%. However, these numbers were calculated using all 37 study patients, and did not exclude the 13 who died! I’m not sure how this works, exactly.

Bottom line: Read this one closely. The authors conclude that, although morbidity, mortality, and adverse outcomes are high, there is a good outcome in 41% of patients.

Really? This is why it is so important to read the whole paper. If you just browsed the abstract and its conclusion, you would have missed the fact that they only accepted independent patients with no dementia or critical comorbidities! The patient group was highly selected which biased them toward better outcomes. Furthermore, there were only 37 people in this retrospective study. 

Personally, I learned very little from this study. I cannot use it to guide me in answering the questions I posed with the original scenarios.  Tomorrow, I’ll review a more recent paper to see if we can find any more clues.

Reference: Age and salvageability: analysis of outcome of patients older than 65 years undergoing craniotomy for acute traumatic subdural hematoma. World Neurosurg 78(3/4):306-311, 2012.

I described several variations on the theme of elderly patients and subdural hematoma in my last post. All were situations in which an operation was not immediately indicated. Practice guidelines were in place to smooth the evaluation process for such patients. But do those guidelines really apply in some or all of these cases?

The real question that needs to be answered is “what is the real purpose of the guideline?”

Is it designed to standardize and streamline care? Certainly. But what is it’s real purpose? It is supposed to separate those who need additional treatment from those who do not. So in this case, it seeks to identify patients who are likely to need surgical intervention for their lesion.

In scenario 2, where the patient presents 8 hours after the fall, the “evaluation timer” started at the time of the event. If your practice guideline dictates that you obtain a repeat head CT 6 hours after arrival in the ED, isn’t your first scan at 8 hours really the same as the repeat scan? Shouldn’t you just need the one image, then send them home if they have a normal neurologic exam?

And isn’t there a point at which surgical intervention is no longer an option? That’s what makes scenarios 3-5 more difficult. Can we identify a subset of patients for whom surgery is not an option? For those who have a written “do not resuscitate” status (scenario 4) and don’t change their mind, is any followup evaluation needed at all?

For the other scenarios, we really need to know if there are subsets of patients for whom surgical intervention is inadvisable or contraindicated. Those patients should not need followup studies or even additional monitoring. One could even argue that they don’t need to be seen in an ED at all!

Lots of questions! In my next post, I’ll review some of the data on outcomes after brain surgery for traumatic injuries in elderly patients. Hopefully, we can come to some conclusions and/or recommendations for my scenarios based on this data!

All trauma centers are seeing a steady increase in the number of elderly patients, particularly victims of falls. Frequently, these patients strike their head, and some develop various flavors of intracranial hemorrhage. Several are taking drugs that interfere with clotting or platelet function.

Many centers, like my own, have developed practice guidelines to help trauma professionals deal with these issues in a consistent fashion. But are the guidelines suitable for all elderly head-injured patients?

Let’s consider a case.

Scenario 1. An elderly female falls at her senior living facility, striking her head on a side table.  She is brought to your center’s emergency department for evaluation. An exam and head CT are performed, which demonstrate an asymptomatic 6mm subdural hematoma with no midline shift. The patient is not taking any drugs that would interfere with clotting. You have a clinical practice guideline that requires neurologic monitoring for 6 hours, followed by a repeat CT scan. If the neurologic exam remains stable and the repeat CT shows no progression of the lesion, the patient may be discharged.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? Now let’s add some interesting tidbits.

Scenario 2. Same as above, but the patient is brought to your center the next morning, 8 hours after the fall.

Scenario 3. Same as scenario 1, but the patient is very demented.

Scenario 4. Same as scenario 1, but the patient has a well-documented “do not actively resuscitate” order in place.

Scenario 5. Same as scenario 1, but the patient is 95 years old.

Think about these carefully. Would the extra findings in scenarios 2-5 cause you to change your practice and diverge from the practice guideline? In what ways? What else do you need to know to make good decisions?

Over my next few posts, I’ll consider each of these cases. I’ll cite some of the pertinent literature that I think we need to know. Then I’ll finish up with my take on each of the scenarios.

As always, feel free to share your thoughts about them. You can email, leave comments at the end of this post, or shout it out on Twitter. I’ll respond to each and every one.