Evaluation of the necessity of clinical observation of high-energy trauma patients without significant injury after standardized emergency room stabilization

Evidence of Prolonged Monitoring of Trauma Patients Admitted via Trauma Resuscitation Unit without Primary Proof of Severe Injuries

Introductio: Although management of severely injured patients in the Trauma Resuscitation Unit (TRU) follows evidence-based guidelines, algorithms for treatment of the slightly injured are limited. Methods: All trauma patients in a period of eight months in a Level I trauma center were followed. Retrospective analysis was performed only in patients ≥18 years with primary TRU admission, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≤ 1, Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≤ 1 and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤3 after treatment completion and ≥24 h monitoring in the units. Cochran’s Q-test was used for the statistical evaluation of AIS and ISS changes in units. Results: One hundred and twelve patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-one patients (18.75%) reported new complaints after treatment completion in the TRU. AIS rose from the Intermediate Care Unit (IMC) to Normal Care Unit (NCU) 6.2% and ISS 6.9%. MAIS did not increase >2, and no intervention was necessary for any patient. No correlation was found between computed tomography (CT) diagnostics in TRU and AIS change. Conclusions: The data suggest that AIS, MAIS and ISS did not increase significantly in patients without a severe injury during inpatient treatment, regardless of the type of CT diagnostics performed in the TRU, suggesting that monitoring of these patients may be unnecessary.

Suspicion of abdominal injuries in high-energy trauma patients: which clinical factors influence decision making for diagnostic imaging?

Background: The choice of diagnostic imaging for high-energy trauma (HET) patients is highly debated. Currently, different diagnostic imaging is used in trauma centres to identify abdominal injuries. However, it remains unclear when physicians have a suspicion for abdominal injuries, and when diagnostic imaging is performed. Over-triage may lead to unnecessary diagnostics in relatively minor injured HET-patients.Purpose: We investigated which clinical factors influence the decision to perform a focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) or abdominal computed tomography (CT) in HET-patients. Additionally, we investigated which clinical factors determined whether HET-patients were admitted to the hospital or discharged from the emergency department.Methods: We performed a retrospective data analysis of all HET-patients in a single level II trauma centre in the Netherlands, between June 2015 and January 2017.Results: 316 HET-patients were included in this study. We found two clinical factors that proved to significantly predict whether a FAST or abdominal CT was performed: abdominal pain and the degree of concomitant injury. Furthermore, we found that the degree of concomitant injury as well as low haemoglobin levels proved to significantly predict whether a patient was admitted to the hospital for observation.Conclusion: This study clarifies on which clinical factors the decision is taken to perform diagnostic imaging to identify abdominal injuries. Future prospective multicentre studies should clarify whether these clinical factors are trustworthy predictors of abdominal injuries, and whether patients can safely be discharged after trauma work-up.

Can clinical prediction tools predict the need for computed tomography in blunt abdominal? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Blunt abdominal trauma is a common reason for admission to the Emergency Department. Early detection of injuries is an important goal but is often not straightforward as physical examination alone is not a good predictor of serious injury. Computed tomography (CT) has become the primary method for assessing the stable trauma patient. It has high sensitivity and specificity but there remains concern regarding the long term consequences of high doses of radiation. Therefore an accurate and reliable method of assessing which patients are at higher risk of injury and hence require a CT would be clinically useful. We perform a systematic review to investigate the use of clinical prediction tools (CPTs) for the identification of abdominal injuries in patients suffering blunt trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and NHS Evidence up to August 2014. English language, prospective and retrospective studies were included if they derived, validated or assessed a CPT, aimed at identifying intra-abdominal injuries or the need for intervention to treat an intra-abdominal after blunt trauma. Methodological quality was assessed using a 14 point scale. Performance was assessed predominantly by sensitivity.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies were identified. All studies were derivative studies and no CPT was validated in a separate study. There were large differences in the study design, composition of the CPTs, the outcomes analysed and the methodological quality of the included studies. Sensitivities ranged from 86 to 100%. The highest performing CPT had a lower limit of the 95% CI of 95.8% and was of high methodological quality (11 of 14). Had this rule been applied to the population then 25.1% of patients would have avoided a CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven CPTs were identified of varying designs and methodological quality. All demonstrate relatively high sensitivity with some achieving very high sensitivity whilst still managing to reduce the number of CTs performed by a significant amount. Further studies are required to validate the results obtained by the highest performing CPTs before any firm recommendation can be used regarding their use in routine clinical practice.

Blunt abdominal trauma patients are at very low risk for intra-abdominal injury after emergency department observation

Introduction

Patients are commonly admitted to the hospital for observation following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT), despite initially negative emergency department (ED) evaluations. With the current use of screening technology, such as computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, ultrasound, and laboratory evaluations, it is unclear which patients require observation. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of intra-abdominal injury (IAI) and death in hemodynamically normal and stable BAT patients with initially negative ED evaluations admitted to an ED observation unit and to define a low-risk subgroup of patients and assess whether they may be discharged without abdominal/pelvic CT or observation.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study performed at an urban level 1 trauma center and included all BAT patients admitted to an ED observation unit as part of a BAT key clinical pathway. All were observed for at least 8 hours as part of the key clinical pathway, and only minors and pregnant women were excluded. Outcomes included the presence of IAI or death during a 40-month follow-up period. Prior to data collection, low-risk criteria were defined as no intoxication, no hypotension or tachycardia, no abdominal pain or tenderness, no hematuria, and no distracting injury. To be considered low risk, patients needed to meet all low-risk criteria.

Results

Of the 1,169 patients included over the 2-year study period, 29% received a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, 6% were admitted to the hospital from the observation unit for further management, 0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1%–1%) were diagnosed with IAI, and 0% (95% CI, 0%–0.3%) died. Patients had a median combined ED and observation length of stay of 9.5 hours. Of the 237 (20%) patients who met low-risk criteria, 7% had a CT of the abdomen and pelvis and 0% (95% CI, 0%–1.5%) were diagnosed with IAI or died.

Conclusion

Most BAT patients who have initially negative ED evaluations are at low risk for IAI but still require some combination of observation and CT. A subgroup of BAT patients may be safely discharged without CT or observation after the initial evaluation.

Predictors for the selection of patients for abdominal CT after blunt trauma: a proposal for a diagnostic algorithm

OBJECTIVE

To select parameters that can predict which patients should receive abdominal computed tomography (CT) after high-energy blunt trauma.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Abdominal CT accurately detects injuries of the abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine, but has important disadvantages. More evidence for an appropriate patient selection for CT is required.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive adult high-energy blunt trauma patients. All patients received primary and secondary surveys according to the advanced trauma life support, sonography (focused assessment with sonography for trauma [FAST]), conventional radiography (CR) of the chest, pelvis, and spine and routine abdominal CT. Parameters from prehospital information, physical examination, laboratory investigations, FAST, and CR were prospectively recorded for all patients. Independent predictors for the presence of > or =1 injuries on abdominal CT were determined using a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1040 patients were included, 309 had injuries on abdominal CT. Nine parameters were independent predictors for injuries on CT: abnormal CR of the pelvis (odds ratio [OR], 46.8), lumbar spine (OR, 16.2), and chest (OR, 2.37), abnormal FAST (OR, 26.7), abnormalities in physical examination of the abdomen/pelvis (OR, 2.41) or lumbar spine (OR 2.53), base excess <-3 (OR, 2.39), systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (OR, 3.81), and long bone fractures (OR, 1.61). The prediction model based on these predictors resulted in a R of 0.60, a sensitivity of 97%, and a specificity of 33%. A diagnostic algorithm was subsequently proposed, which could reduce CT usage with 22% as compared with a routine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on parameters from physical examination, laboratory, FAST, and CR, we created a prediction model with a high sensitivity to select patients for abdominal CT after blunt trauma. A diagnostic algorithm was proposed.

Is hospital admission and observation required after a normal abdominal computed tomography scan in children with blunt abdominal trauma?

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if hospital admission of children with blunt abdominal trauma for observation of possible intraabdominal injury (IAI) is necessary after a normal abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective observational cohort study of children less than 18 years of age with blunt abdominal trauma who underwent an abdominal CT scan in the ED. Abdominal CT scans were obtained with intravenous contrast but no oral contrast. The decision to hospitalize the patient was made by the attending emergency physician (EP) with the trauma or pediatric surgery teams. An abnormal abdominal CT scan was defined by the presence of any visualized IAI or findings suggestive of possible IAI (e.g., intraperitoneal fluid without solid organ injury). Patients were followed to determine if IAI was later diagnosed and the need for acute therapeutic intervention if IAI was present.

RESULTS

A total of 1,295 patients underwent abdominal CT, and 1,085 (84%) patients had normal abdominal CT scans in the ED and make up the study population. Seven-hundred thirty-seven (68%) were hospitalized, and 348 were discharged to home. None of the 348 patients discharged home and 2 of the 737 hospitalized patients were identified with an IAI after a normal initial abdominal CT. The IAIs in patients with normal initial CT scans included a 10-year-old with a mesenteric hematoma and serosal tear at laparotomy and a 10-year-old with a perinephric hematoma on repeat CT. Neither underwent specific therapy. The negative predictive value (NPV) of a normal abdominal CT scan for IAI was 99.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 99.3% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Children with blunt abdominal trauma and a normal abdominal CT scan in the ED are at very low risk of having a subsequently diagnosed IAI and are very unlikely to require a therapeutic intervention. Hospitalization of children for evaluation of possible undiagnosed IAI after a normal abdominal CT scan has a low yield and is generally unnecessary.

Lung contusion from focal low-moderate chest trauma

Apparently minor chest trauma may result in localized pulmonary contusion. Complications of the contusion, particularly infection, may be delayed. The association between the infection and initial injury may not be appreciated due to the time frame between the injury and clinical presentation. We report two cases of low-moderate impact pulmonary trauma resulting in focal pulmonary contusion, complicated by infection.

What Mechanism Justifies Abdominal Evaluation in Motor Vehicle Crashes?

BACKGROUND

Significant resources are spent on assessment of the abdomen in motor vehicle crash (MVC) occupants based solely upon crash mechanism. Most have no clinically significant injuries. We sought to define crash and occupant characteristics that would be associated with a low probability of clinically significant abdominal injury.

METHODS

Drivers in MVCs were analyzed from the National Automotive Sampling System from 1993 to 2001. The probability of abdominal injury with an Abbreviated Injury Score > 1 was measured over a range of crash velocities controlling for other covariates using multivariate logistic regression. A receiver operating curve was used to assess the model.

RESULTS

Age, restraint use, net change in velocity, ejection, rollover, vehicle type, other passenger mortality, and other injuries were included in the model yielding an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.948. The probability of abdominal injury increased significantly at velocities >20 km/h and reached 5.0% at approximately 30 km/h. Age >75 years old or the presence of head, leg, or chest injuries significantly increased the risk of abdominal injury, even at low velocities. Absence of injury to the head, spine, legs, or chest indicated that the abdomen was unlikely to be injured regardless of crash velocity.

CONCLUSION

Absence of injury to the head, chest, spine, and legs indicates an extremely low probability of abdominal injury, even at high velocities. Abdominal evaluation in this group of patients for reason of mechanism alone is therefore unnecessary.