ContributionsMagdy Selim --organized the trial hypotheses, designed the trial, provided guidance about the data analysis and interpretation and presentation of the data, and drafted most of the sections of the manuscript. Lydia Foster --involved in the statistical analysis and data interpretation, and Contributed to the development and revisions to the manuscript. Claudia Moy --involved in the oversight of the trial conduct and progress Guohua Xi --organized the trial hypotheses, and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. MH, MJ, VS, and WC contributed to recruitment and randomization of trial participants, and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. LM and SG were involved in the design of the trial and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Casey Norton --provided volumetric measurements of imaging data. Yuko Palesch --involved in the design of the study, statistical analysis and data interpretation, and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Sharon yeatts --involved in the design of the study, statistical analysis and data interpretation, and contributed to the development and revisions to the manuscript. The idef investigators (see appendix) --contributed to the identification and, when eligible, randomization of trial participants. DECLARATION OF INTERESTSThis was an investigator-initiated study, funded by the NINDS (U01 NS074425). Deferoxamine Mesylate is a generic drug, and there was no commercial or industrial support for the trial. None of the authors has any competing interests related to the submitted work. MS reports grants from the NIH/NINDS (i-DEF) and the American Heart Association (outside the submitted work), and personal fees for serving on the advisory board of CSL Behring (outside the submitted work) during the conduct of the trial. SDY reports grant support from the NINDS, personal fees from Genentech and other fees from CR Bard Inc. (outside the submitted work) during the conduct of the study. SG, LDF, YP, and GX report grants from the NIH/NINDS. MDH reports personal fees from Merck, nonfinancial support from Hoffmann-La Roche Canada Ltd, grants from Covidien (Medtronic), grants from Boehringer-Ingleheim, grants from Stryker Inc., grants from Medtronic LLC, grants from NoNO Inc., (outside the submitted work); In addition, MDH has a patent Systems and Methods for Assisting in Decision-Making and Triaging for Acute Stroke Patients pending to US Patent office Number: 62/086,077 and owns stock in Calgary Scientific Incorporated, a company that focuses on medical imaging software, is a director of the Canadian Federation of Neurological Sciences, a not-for-profit group and has received grant support from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions, CIHR, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and NINDS. LM, VS, WC, MJ, CM, and CN have nothing to disclose.

In our msTBI cohort, WOC was the most important predictor of in-hospital mortality. We identified several important independent predictors of WOC. Large within-center variability in msTBI outcome prognostication with varying levels of possible clinical nihilism exists, which may form the basis of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Background Two randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) were published in recent years: DECRA in 2011 and RESCUEicp in 2016. As the results have generated debate amongst clinicians and researchers working in the field of TBI worldwide, it was felt necessary to provide general guidance on the use of DC following TBI and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty via a consensus-based approach. Methods The International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury took place in Cambridge, UK, on the 28th and 29th September 2017. The meeting was jointly organised by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), AO/Global Neuro and the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma. Discussions and voting were organised around six pre-specified themes: (1) primary DC for mass lesions, (2) secondary DC for intracranial hypertension, (3) peri-operative care, (4) surgical technique, (5) cranial reconstruction and (6) DC in low- and middle-income countries. Results The invited participants discussed existing published evidence and proposed consensus statements. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Conclusions In this manuscript, we present the final consensus-based recommendations. We have also identified areas of uncertainty, where further research is required, including the role of primary DC, the role of hinge craniotomy and the optimal timing and material for skull reconstruction.

Introduction Surrogate decision-makers (“surrogates”) and physicians of incapacitated patients have different views of prognosis and how it should be communicated, but this has not been investigated in neurocritically-ill patients. We examined surrogates’ communication preferences and physicians’ practices during the outcome prognostication for critically-ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients in two level-1 trauma centers and seven academic medical centers in the U.S. Methods We used qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics of transcribed interviews to identify themes in surrogates (n=16) and physicians (n=20). Results The majority of surrogates (82%) preferred numeric estimates describing the patient’s prognosis, as they felt it would increase prognostic certainty, and limit the uncertainty perceived as frustrating. Conversely, 75% of the physicians reported intentionally omitting numeric estimates during prognostication meetings due to low confidence in family members’ abilities to appropriately interpret probabilities, worry about creating false hope, and distrust in the accuracy and data quality of existing TBI outcome models. Physicians felt that these models are for research only and should not be applied to individual patients. Surrogates valued compassion during prognostication discussions, and acceptance of their goals-of-care decision by clinicians. Physicians and surrogates agreed on avoiding false hope. Conclusion We identified fundamental differences in the communication preferences of prognostic information between ciTBI patient surrogates and physicians. These findings inform the content of a future decision aid for goals-of-care discussions in ciTBI patients. If validated, these findings may have important implications for improving communication practices in the neuroICU independent of whether a formal decision aid is used.

No abstract