Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 May 25;325(20):2056-2066.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.5561.

Effect of Continuous Infusion of Hypertonic Saline vs Standard Care on 6-Month Neurological Outcomes in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: The COBI Randomized Clinical Trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of Continuous Infusion of Hypertonic Saline vs Standard Care on 6-Month Neurological Outcomes in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: The COBI Randomized Clinical Trial

Antoine Roquilly et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Importance: Fluid therapy is an important component of care for patients with traumatic brain injury, but whether it modulates clinical outcomes remains unclear.

Objective: To determine whether continuous infusion of hypertonic saline solution improves neurological outcome at 6 months in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Design, setting, and participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 9 intensive care units in France, including 370 patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury who were recruited from October 2017 to August 2019. Follow-up was completed in February 2020.

Interventions: Adult patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury were randomly assigned to receive continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline solution plus standard care (n = 185) or standard care alone (controls; n = 185). The 20% hypertonic saline solution was administered for 48 hours or longer if patients remained at risk of intracranial hypertension.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) score (range, 1-8, with lower scores indicating worse functional outcome) at 6 months, obtained centrally by blinded assessors and analyzed with ordinal logistic regression adjusted for prespecified prognostic factors (with a common odds ratio [OR] >1.0 favoring intervention). There were 12 secondary outcomes measured at multiple time points, including development of intracranial hypertension and 6-month mortality.

Results: Among 370 patients who were randomized (median age, 44 [interquartile range, 27-59] years; 77 [20.2%] women), 359 (97%) completed the trial. The adjusted common OR for the GOS-E score at 6 months was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.71-1.47; P = .92). Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 10 were not significantly different. Intracranial hypertension developed in 62 (33.7%) patients in the intervention group and 66 (36.3%) patients in the control group (absolute difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -12.3% to 7.2%]; OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.51-1.26]). There was no significant difference in 6-month mortality (29 [15.9%] in the intervention group vs 37 [20.8%] in the control group; absolute difference, -4.9% [95% CI, -12.8% to 3.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.48-1.28]).

Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, treatment with continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline compared with standard care did not result in a significantly better neurological status at 6 months. However, confidence intervals for the findings were wide, and the study may have had limited power to detect a clinically important difference.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03143751.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Roquilly reported receiving grants and consulting fees from Merck and bioMérieux. Dr Cinotti reported receiving personal fees from Paion. Dr Asehnoune reported receiving lecture fees from Baxter, Fisher & Paykel, and LFB and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and LFB. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flow of Participants Through the Continuous Hyperosmolar Therapy for Traumatic Brain-Injured Patients (COBI) Trial
Data for the primary outcome at 6 months were available for 359 patients (97%; 181 in the continuous hyperosmolar therapy group and 178 in the control group). Data at 3 months were available for 175 and 176 patients, respectively.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Physiological Measurements During the First 7 Days
Box plots show observed data (no imputation if not monitored at the indicated time). A, B, and D, Horizontal lines within boxes indicate medians; box tops and bottoms, IQR; whiskers, the furthest value within 1.5× IQR; and dots, outliers. The mean differences attributed to the treatment effects calculated by linear mixed-effects models taking into account the effects of time and treatment were 13.50 (95% CI, 10.07-16.93) mmol/L for blood osmolarity, 7.38 (95% CI, 6.35-8.41) mmol/L for blood sodium, and −1.3 (95% CI, −2.8 to 0.3) mm Hg for intracranial pressure. C, Patients without invasive intracranial pressure monitoring were considered free of intracranial hypertension. The odds ratio of the treatment effect calculated by logistic mixed-effects models accounting for time and treatment effects was 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.26).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Outcomes at 6 Months
A, Distribution of Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) scores at 6 months. Different colors correspond to GOS-E scores. The connecting line between the 2 study groups indicates the GOS-E outcome dichotomization (poor vs favorable). B, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the unadjusted probability of death at 6 months in patients receiving continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline solution or standard care. The estimate adjusted probability of death at 6 months is a hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.48-1.28). The median observation time was 180 days (interquartile range, 180-180 days) in both treatment groups. Graphical assessment indicates that the proportionality assumption was met.

Comment in

References

    1. Dewan MC, Rattani A, Gupta S, et al. . Estimating the global incidence of traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(4):1-18. doi:10.3171/2017.10.jns17352 - DOI - PubMed
    1. James SL, Theadom A, Ellenbogen RG, et al. ; GBD 2016 Traumatic Brain Injury and Spinal Cord Injury Collaborators . Global, regional, and national burden of traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(1):56-87. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30415-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Steyerberg EW, Wiegers E, Sewalt C, et al. ; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators . Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(10):923-934. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maas AIR, Menon DK, Adelson PD, et al. ; InTBIR Participants and Investigators . Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(12):987-1048. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30371-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carney N, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, et al. . Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(1):6-15. doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000001432 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data