Can cervical spine computed tomography assist in detecting occult pneumothoraces?

Not so FAST-Chest ultrasound underdiagnoses traumatic pneumothorax

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography for trauma is a widely used tool in the initial evaluation of trauma patients with complete ultrasonography of trauma (CUST) demonstrating equivalence to computed tomography (CT) for detecting clinically significant abdominal hemorrhage. Initial reports demonstrated high sensitivity of CUST for the bedside diagnosis of pneumothorax. We hypothesized that the sensitivity of CUST would be greater than initial supine chest radiograph (CXR) for detecting pneumothorax.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with pneumothorax from 2018 through 2020 at a Level I trauma center was performed. Patients included had routine supine CXR and CUST performed prior to intervention as well as confirmatory CT imaging. All CUST were performed during the initial evaluation in the trauma bay by a registered sonographer. All imaging was evaluated by an attending radiologist. Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding occult pneumothorax. Immediate tube thoracostomy was defined as tube placement with confirmatory CXR within 8 hours of admission.

RESULTS

There were 568 patients screened with a diagnosis of pneumothorax, identifying 362 patients with a confirmed pneumothorax in addition to CXR, CUST, and confirmatory CT imaging. The population was 83% male, had a mean age of 45 years, with 85% presenting due to blunt trauma. Sensitivity of CXR for detecting pneumothorax was 43%, while the sensitivity of CUST was 35%. After removal of occult pneumothorax (n = 171), CXR was 78% sensitive, while CUST was 65% sensitive (p < 0.01). In this subgroup, CUST had a false-negative rate of 36% (n = 62). Of those patients with a false-negative CUST, 50% (n = 31) underwent tube thoracostomy, with 85% requiring immediate placement.

CONCLUSION

Complete ultrasonography of trauma performed on initial trauma evaluation had lower sensitivity than CXR for identification of pneumothorax including clinically significant pneumothorax requiring tube thoracostomy. Using CUST as the primary imaging modality in the initial evaluation of chest trauma should be considered with caution.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test study, Level IV.

Chest ultrasonography versus supine chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography (CUS) by frontline non-radiologist physicians versus chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). To investigate the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity such as type of CUS operator (frontline non-radiologist physicians), type of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), and type of US probe on test accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from database inception to 10 April 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. We handsearched reference lists of included articles and reviews retrieved via electronic searching; and we carried out forward citation searching of relevant articles in Google Scholar and looked at the "Related articles" on PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective, paired comparative accuracy studies comparing CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians to supine CXR in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) suspected of having pneumothorax, and with computed tomography (CT) of the chest or tube thoracostomy as the reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a data extraction form. We included studies using patients as the unit of analysis in the main analysis and we included those using lung fields in the secondary analysis. We performed meta-analyses by using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities and specificities.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies of which nine (410 traumatic pneumothorax patients out of 1271 patients) used patients as the unit of analysis; we thus included them in the primary analysis. The remaining four studies used lung field as the unit of analysis and we included them in the secondary analysis. We judged all studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in one or more domains, with most studies (11/13, 85%) being judged at high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain. There was substantial heterogeneity in the sensitivity of supine CXR amongst the included studies. In the primary analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity of CUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); and the summary sensitivity and specificity of supine CXR were 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). There was a significant difference in the sensitivity of CUS compared to CXR with an absolute difference in sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, CUS and CXR had similar specificities: comparing CUS to CXR, the absolute difference in specificity was -0.007 (95% CI -0.018 to 0.005, P = 0.35). The findings imply that in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients if 30 patients have traumatic pneumothorax (i.e. prevalence of 30%), CUS would miss 3 (95% CI 2 to 4) cases (false negatives) and overdiagnose 1 (95% CI 0 to 2) of those without pneumothorax (false positives); while CXR would miss 16 (95% CI 11 to 21) cases with 0 (95% CI 0 to 2) overdiagnosis of those who do not have pneumothorax.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in ED trauma patients is superior to supine CXR, independent of the type of trauma, type of CUS operator, or type of CUS probe used. These findings suggest that CUS for the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax should be incorporated into trauma protocols and algorithms in future medical training programmes; and that CUS may beneficially change routine management of trauma.

Occult pneumothoraces in children with blunt torso trauma

OBJECTIVES

Plain chest x-ray (CXR) is often the initial screening test to identify pneumothoraces in trauma patients. Computed tomography (CT) scans can identify pneumothoraces not seen on CXR ("occult pneumothoraces"), but the clinical importance of these radiographically occult pneumothoraces in children is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of occult pneumothoraces in injured children and the rate of treatment with tube thoracostomy among these children.

METHODS

This was a planned substudy from a large prospective multicenter observational cohort study of children younger than 18 years old evaluated in emergency departments (EDs) in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) for blunt torso trauma from May 2007 to January 2010. Children with CXRs as part of their trauma evaluations were included for analysis. The faculty radiologist interpretations of the CXRs and any subsequent imaging studies, including CT scans, were reviewed for the absence or presence of pneumothoraces. An "occult pneumothorax" was defined as a pneumothorax that was not identified on CXR, but was subsequently demonstrated on cervical, chest, or abdominal CT scan. Rates of pneumothoraces and placement of tube thoracostomies and rate differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 12,044 enrolled in the parent study, 8,020 (67%) children (median age=11.3 years, interquartile range [IQR]=5.3 to 15.2 years) underwent CXRs in the ED, and these children make up the study population. Among these children, 4,276 had abdominal CT scans performed within 24 hours. A total of 372 of 8,020 children (4.6%; 95% CI=4.2% to 5.1%) had pneumothoraces identified by CXR and/or CT. The CXRs visualized pneumothoraces in 148 patients (1.8%; 95% CI=1.6% to 2.2%), including one false-positive pneumothorax, which was identified on CXR, but was not demonstrated on CT. Occult pneumothoraces were present in 224 of 372 (60.2%; 95% CI=55.0% to 65.2%) children with pneumothoraces. Tube thoracostomies were performed in 85 of 148 (57.4%; 95% CI=49.0% to 65.5%) children with pneumothoraces on CXR and in 35 of 224 (15.6%; 95% CI=11.1% to 21.1%) children with occult pneumothoraces (rate difference=-41.8%; 95% CI=-50.8 to -32.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients with blunt torso trauma, pneumothoraces are uncommon, and most are not identified on the ED CXR. Nearly half of pneumothoraces, and most occult pneumothoraces, are managed without tube thoracostomy. Observation, including in children requiring endotracheal intubation, should be strongly considered during the initial management of children with occult pneumothoraces.