Does the presence of ultrasound really affect computed tomographic scan use? A prospective randomized trial of ultrasound in trauma

Translating Guidelines into Practical Practice: Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Pediatric Critical Care Clinicians

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is now transitioning from an emerging technology to a standard of care for critically ill children. POCUS can provide immediate answers to clinical questions impacting management and outcomes within this fragile population. Recently published international guidelines specific to POCUS use in neonatal and pediatric critical care populations now complement previous Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines. The authors review consensus statements within guidelines, identify important limitations to statements, and provide considerations for the successful implementation of POCUS in the pediatric critical care setting.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Intra-abdominal injury is a major cause of morbidity in children. Computed tomography (CT) is the reference standard for the evaluation of hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma. CT has an increased risk of long-term radiation induced malignancies and a possible risk associated with the use of iodinated contrast media. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) might represent an alternative to CT in stable children with blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). Nonetheless, CEUS in pediatrics remains limited by the lack of strong evidence. The purpose of this study was to offer a systematic review on the use of CEUS in pediatric abdominal trauma.

METHODS

Electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases of studies investigating CEUS for abdominal trauma in children. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 7 studies. CEUS was performed with different ultrasound equipment, always with a curvilinear transducer. Six out of seven studies used a second-generation contrast agent. No immediate adverse reactions were reported. The dose of contrast agent and the scanning technique varied between studies. All CEUS exams were performed by radiologists, in the radiology department or at the bedside. No standard training was reported to become competent in CEUS. The range of sensitivity and specificity of CEUS were 85.7 to 100% and 89 to 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CEUS appears to be safe and accurate to identify abdominal solid organ injuries in children with BAT. Further research is necessary to assess the feasibility of CEUS by non-radiologists, the necessary training, and the benefit-cost ratio of CEUS as a tool to potentially reduce CT scans.

Occult Abdominal Trauma

Occult abdominal injuries are common and can be associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Patients with a delayed presentation to care or who are multiply injured are at increased risk of this type of injury, and a high index of suspicion must be maintained. A careful combination of history, physical examination, laboratory, and imaging can be quite helpful in mitigating the risk of a missed occult abdominal injury.

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.

Blunt renal trauma in pediatric population

Aims

This study aims to evaluate the magnitude and impact of renal trauma among pediatric population and to assess the effectiveness of conservative versus operative management.

Subjects and Methods

All pediatric patients (age <18 years) with blunt renal trauma, who presented to King Khalid National Guard Hospital in Jeddah between January 2000 and December 2012, were retrospectively reviewed. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, mechanism of injury, length of hospital stay, grade of renal trauma, hematuria, renovascular injuries, associated nonrenal injuries, conservative versus operative management, renal outcomes, and complications.

Results

Fifteen children with a blunt renal injury were identified, of which 14 met data inclusion criteria. The renal injury population had a mean age of 12.7 years (standard deviation 4.6) and was 85.7% male. The renal injuries were distributed as follows: Grade 1, n = 3 (21.4%); Grade 2, n = 3 (21.4%); Grade 3, n = 3 (21.4%); Grade 4, n = 3 (21.4%); and Grade 5, n = 2 (14.2%). Macroscopic hematuria was present in 64.3% of children. The median hospital length of stay was 13 days. Eleven children (78.5%) had traumatic injuries in multiple organs. Overall, 10 children (71.4%) were managed conservatively. Four children (28.5%) with high-grade trauma required operative intervention. Renovascular injuries were found in 4 cases (80%) of high-grade renal injuries.

Conclusions

Conservative management of kidney injuries was highly successful in children with low-grade renal trauma. Furthermore, operative intervention in high-grade renal injuries proved to be successful and had good renal outcomes. Renal preservation was achieved in 92.8% of cases.

When to incorporate point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into the initial assessment of acutely ill patients: a pilot crossover study to compare 2 POCUS-assisted simulation protocols

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the ideal timing for providers to perform point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) with the least increase in workload.

Methods

We conducted a pilot crossover study to compare 2 POCUS-assisted evaluation protocols for acutely ill patients: sequential (physical examination followed by POCUS) vs parallel (POCUS at the time of physical examination). Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups according to which POCUS-assisted protocol (sequential vs parallel) was used during simulated scenarios. Subsequently, the groups were crossed over to complete assessment by using the other POCUS-assisted protocol in the same patient scenarios. Providers’ workloads, measured with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and time to complete patient evaluation, were compared between the 2 protocols.

Results

Seven providers completed 14 assessments (7 sequential and 7 parallel). The median (IQR) total NASA-TLX score was 30 (30–50) in the sequential and 55 (50–65) in the parallel protocol (P = .03), which suggests a significantly lower workload in the sequential protocol. When individual components of the NASA-TLX score were evaluated, mental demand and frustration level were significantly lower in the sequential than in the parallel protocol (40 [IQR, 30–60] vs 50 [IQR, 40–70]; P = .03 and 25 [IQR, 20–35] vs 60 [IQR, 45–85]; P = .02, respectively). The time needed to complete the assessment was similar between the sequential and parallel protocols (8.7 [IQR, 6–9] minutes vs 10.1 [IQR, 7–11] minutes, respectively; P = .30).

Conclusions

A sequential POCUS-assisted protocol posed less workload to POCUS operators than the parallel protocol.

Effect of Abdominal Ultrasound on Clinical Care, Outcomes, and Resource Use Among Children With Blunt Torso Trauma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The utility of the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination in children is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the FAST examination during initial evaluation of injured children improves clinical care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized clinical trial (April 2012-May 2015) that involved 975 hemodynamically stable children and adolescents younger than 18 years treated for blunt torso trauma at the University of California, Davis Medical Center, a level I trauma center.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to a standard trauma evaluation with the FAST examination by the treating ED physician or a standard trauma evaluation alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcomes were rate of abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans in the ED, missed intra-abdominal injuries, ED length of stay, and hospital charges.

RESULTS

Among the 925 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 9.7 [5.3] years; 575 males [62%]), all completed the study. A total of 50 patients (5.4%, 95% CI, 4.0% to 7.1%) were diagnosed with intra-abdominal injuries, including 40 (80%; 95% CI, 66% to 90%) who had intraperitoneal fluid found on an abdominal CT scan, and 9 patients (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.44% to 1.8%) underwent laparotomy. The proportion of patients with abdominal CT scans was 241 of 460 (52.4%) in the FAST group and 254 of 465 (54.6%) in the standard care-only group (difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -8.7% to 4.2%). One case of missed intra-abdominal injury occurred in a patient in the FAST group and none in the control group (difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 1.2%). The mean ED length of stay was 6.03 hours in the FAST group and 6.07 hours in the standard care-only group (difference, -0.04 hours; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.40 hours). Median hospital charges were $46 415 in the FAST group and $47 759 in the standard care-only group (difference, -$1180; 95% CI, -$6651 to $4291).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among hemodynamically stable children treated in an ED following blunt torso trauma, the use of FAST compared with standard care only did not improve clinical care, including use of resources; ED length of stay; missed intra-abdominal injuries; or hospital charges. These findings do not support the routine use of FAST in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01540318.

Pediatric emergency medicine point-of-care ultrasound: summary of the evidence

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound is well supported by the medical literature. Consequently, pediatric emergency medicine providers have embraced this technology in everyday practice. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement endorsing the use of point-of-care ultrasound by pediatric emergency medicine providers.  To date, there is no standard guideline for the practice of point-of-care ultrasound for this specialty. This document serves as an initial step in the detailed "how to" and description of individual point-of-care ultrasound examinations.  Pediatric emergency medicine providers should refer to this paper as reference for published research, objectives for learners, and standardized reporting guidelines.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013.

RESULTS

The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography (performed by means of a four-quadrant, focused assessment of sonography for trauma (FAST)) is regarded as a key instrument for the initial assessment of patients with suspected blunt abdominal and thoraco-abdominal trauma in the emergency department setting. FAST has a high specificity but low sensitivity in detecting and excluding visceral injuries. Proponents of FAST argue that ultrasound-based clinical pathways enhance the speed of primary trauma assessment, reduce the number of unnecessary multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scans, and enable quicker triage to surgical and non-surgical care. Given the proven accuracy, increasing availability of, and indication for, MDCT among patients with blunt abdominal and multiple injuries, we aimed to compile the best available evidence of the use of FAST-based assessment compared with other primary trauma assessment protocols.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of diagnostic algorithms using ultrasonography including in FAST examinations in the emergency department in relation to the early, late, and overall mortality of patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

The most recent search was run on 30th June 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. Trial authors were contacted for further information and individual patient data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were patients with blunt torso, abdominal, or multiple trauma undergoing diagnostic investigations for abdominal organ injury. The intervention was diagnostic algorithms comprising emergency ultrasonography (US). The control was diagnostic algorithms without US examinations (for example, primary computed tomography (CT) or diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL)). Outcomes were mortality, use of CT or invasive procedures (DPL, laparoscopy, laparotomy), and cost-effectiveness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (DS and CG) independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and weighted mean differences, each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated by fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Overall, trials were of poor to moderate methodological quality. Few trial authors responded to our written inquiries seeking to resolve controversial issues and to obtain individual patient data. Strong heterogeneity amongst the trials prompted discussion between the review authors as to whether the data should or should not be pooled; we decided in favour of a quantitative synthesis to provide a rough impression about the effect sizes achievable with US-based triage algorithms. We pooled mortality data from three trials involving 1254 patients; the RR in favour of the FAST arm was 1.00 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.00). FAST-based pathways reduced the number of CT scans (random-effects model RD -0.52, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.21), but the meaning of this result was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The experimental evidence justifying FAST-based clinical pathways in diagnosing patients with suspected abdominal or multiple blunt trauma remains poor. Because of strong heterogeneity between the trial results, the quantitative information provided by this review may only be used in an exploratory fashion. It is unlikely that FAST will ever be investigated by means of a confirmatory, large-scale RCT in the future. Thus, this Cochrane Review may be regarded as a review which provides the best available evidence for clinical practice guidelines and management recommendations. It can only be concluded from the few head-to-head studies that negative US scans are likely to reduce the incidence of MDCT scans which, given the low sensitivity of FAST (or reliability of negative results), may adversely affect the diagnostic yield of the trauma survey. At best, US has no negative impact on mortality or morbidity. Assuming that major blunt abdominal or multiple trauma is associated with 15% mortality and a CT-based diagnostic work-up is considered the current standard of care, 874, 3495, or 21,838 patients are needed per intervention group to demonstrate non-inferiority of FAST to CT-based algorithms with non-inferiority margins of 5%, 2.5%, and 1%, power of 90%, and a type-I error alpha of 5%.

Bedside ultrasonography-Applications in critical care: Part II

Point of care ultrasonography, performed by acute care physicians, has developed into an invaluable bedside tool providing important clinical information with a major impact on patient care. In Part II of this narrative review, we describe ultrasound guided central venous cannulation, which has become standard of care with internal jugular vein cannulation. Besides improving success rates, real-time guidance also significantly reduces the incidence of complications. We also discuss compression ultrasonography - a quick and effective bedside screening tool for deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity. Abdominal ultrasound offers vital clues in the emergency setting; in the unstable trauma victim, a focused examination may provide immediate answers and has largely superseded diagnostic peritoneal lavage in diagnosing intraperitoneal bleed. From estimation of intracranial pressure to transcranial Doppler studies, ultrasound is becoming increasingly relevant to neurocritical care. Ultrasound may also help with airway management in several situations, including percutaneous tracheostomy. Clearly, bedside ultrasonography has become an indispensable part of intensive care practice – in the rapid assessment of critically ill-patients as well as in enhancing the safety of invasive procedures.

Ultrasonographic diagnosis of abdominal free fluid: accuracy comparison of emergency physicians and radiologists

OBJECTIVE

Blunt abdominal trauma is a diagnostic challenge for emergency physicians and ultrasonography is one of the diagnostic tools used in this type of injuries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of ultrasonographies performed by emergency physicians and radiologists.

METHODS

This prospective diagnostic study was performed in the emergency departments of two trauma centers in Iran during a period of 12 months. The subjects were all patients with blunt abdominal trauma that were candidated for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scanning in our emergency departments. The results of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) performed by emergency physicians and radiologists were compared blindly with the results of CT scans performed by radiologists. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of diagnosis for different abdominal anatomic areas were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 450 patients undergoing FAST and CT scanning were studied. The sensitivity of radiologists' diagnoses for Morison's, splenorenal, perivesical, and pleural effusion areas were, respectively, 88.0, 70.0, 38.0, and 30.0 %. The corresponding values for emergency physicians' diagnoses were, respectively, 82.0, 60.0, 28.0, and 30.0 %. The specificity of radiologists' diagnoses in the mentioned areas were, respectively, 98.9, 100, 93.1, and 100 %, and for emergency physicians, they were, respectively, 98.9, 100, 96.0, and 100 %.

CONCLUSION

Emergency physicians showed a promising performance in applying FAST in blunt abdominal trauma. The specificity of ultrasonographic diagnosis in the emergency physicians group and the radiologists group were comparable, while radiologists showed a higher performance regarding the sensitivity of the ultrasonographic diagnosis.

Does this adult patient have a blunt intra-abdominal injury?

CONTEXT

Blunt abdominal trauma often presents a substantial diagnostic challenge. Well-informed clinical examination can identify patients who require further diagnostic evaluation for intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and bedside imaging studies to identify intra-abdominal injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a structured search of MEDLINE (1950-January 2012) and EMBASE (1980-January 2012) to identify English-language studies examining the identification of intra-abdominal injuries. A separate, structured search was conducted for studies evaluating bedside ultrasonography.

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies of diagnostic accuracy for intra-abdominal injury that compared at least 1 finding with a reference standard of abdominal computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, laparotomy, autopsy, and/or clinical course for intra-abdominal injury. Twelve studies on clinical findings and 22 studies on bedside ultrasonography met inclusion criteria for data extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION

Critical appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The prevalence of intra-abdominal injury in adult emergency department patients with blunt abdominal trauma among all evidence level 1 and 2 studies was 13% (95% CI, 10%-17%), with 4.7% (95% CI, 2.5%-8.6%) requiring therapeutic surgery or angiographic embolization of injuries. The presence of a seat belt sign (likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.6-9.9), rebound tenderness (LR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-24), hypotension (LR, 5.2; 95% CI, 3.5-7.5), abdominal distention (LR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.6), or guarding (LR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-5.9) suggest an intra-abdominal injury. The absence of abdominal tenderness to palpation does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury (summary LR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80). The presence of intraperitoneal fluid or organ injury on bedside ultrasound assessment is more accurate than any history and physical examination findings (adjusted summary LR, 30; 95% CI, 20-46); conversely, a normal ultrasound result decreases the chance of injury detection (adjusted summary LR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.19-0.34). Test results increasing the likelihood of intra-abdominal injury include a base deficit less than -6 mEq/L (LR, 18; 95% CI, 11-30), elevated liver transaminases (LR range, 2.5-5.2), hematuria (LR range, 3.7-4.1), anemia (LR range, 2.2-3.3), and abnormal chest radiograph (LR range, 2.5-3.8). Symptoms and signs may be most useful in combination, particularly in identification of patients who do not need further diagnostic workup.

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside ultrasonography has the highest accuracy of all individual findings, but a normal result does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury. Combinations of clinical findings may be most useful to determine which patients do not require further evaluation, but the ideal combination of variables for identifying patients without intra-abdominal injury requires further study.

Beyond focused assessment with sonography for trauma: ultrasound creep in the trauma resuscitation area and beyond

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of ultrasound for the management of the injured patient has expanded dramatically in the last decade. The focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) has become one of the fundamental skills incorporated into the initial evaluation of the trauma patient. However, there are significant limitations of this diagnostic modality as initially described. Novel ultrasound examinations of the injured patient, although useful, must also be considered carefully.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence supports the high specificity of FAST for detecting a pericardial effusion and intra-abdominal free fluid (hemorrhage) in the patient with blunt injury. On the other hand, a so-called negative FAST result still requires further diagnostic work up given its low sensitivity. Similarly, the role of FAST in penetrating abdominal trauma appears to be limited because of lower sensitivity for visceral injury compared to other modalities. Extended FAST (EFAST), that adds a focused thoracic examination, has high accuracy for the detection of pneumothorax comparable to computed tomographic scan, the significance of which is not currently known. Finally, the utility of intensivist-performed ultrasound in the ICU is expanding to limited hemodynamic assessment and facilitation of central venous catheter placement.

SUMMARY

The indications for FAST and additional ultrasound studies in the injured patient continue to evolve. Application of sound clinical evidence will avoid unsubstantiated indications for ultrasound to creep into our clinical practice.

Is the FAST exam reliable in severely injured patients?

INTRODUCTION

Highly sensitive and accurate for the detection of injuries requiring intervention in haemodynamically unstable patients, FAST may underestimate intra-abdominal injuries in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Diminished accuracy of ultrasound has been reported in different cohorts of multiple injured patients. We hypothesised that multiple injured patients with a high Injury Severity Score (ISS) will have a decreased accuracy of FAST for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma.

METHODS

Data from the trauma registry of a Level 1 trauma centre were retrospectively reviewed. All haemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients who underwent both FAST and CT scan of abdomen from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2005 were included in the cohort. All patients were divided into three groups according to their ISS: Group 1 included patients with an ISS from 1 to 14, Group 2 included patients with an ISS from 16 to 24, and Group 3 consisted of patients with ISS>or=25.

RESULTS

3181 patients with blunt abdominal trauma included into the study were divided into the three groups according to the ISS. The mean ISS was 7.9+/-3.97, 19.6+/-2.48 and 41.3+/-11.95 in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The accuracy of ultrasound was 90.6% in the group of patients with the highest ISS (>or=25) compared with 97.5 and 97.1 for Groups 1 and 2 (p<0.001). Similarly, ultrasound had a significantly lower sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for patients in Group 3 compared with the first two groups (p<0.001). There was a significantly lower sensitivity in Group 2 compared with Group 1 (p<0.001), but no differences in specificity, accuracy, PPV or NPV were demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

Patients with high ISS are at increased risk of having ultrasound-occult injuries and have a lower accuracy of their ultrasound examination than patients with low and moderate ISS.

Validation of nurse-performed FAST ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with abdominal trauma benefit from FAST (Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma). Not all doctor members of the trauma team are credentialed in FAST; therefore occasionally no one is available in the hospital to undertake a FAST. Hence, the aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of nurse-performed FAST as a practical alternative where suitably trained doctors are not available.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of a convenience sample of patients with multisystem trauma in whom abdominal injury was clinically suspected. Senior nurses trained in FAST performed and reported FAST scans for each patient. Accuracy of nurse-performed FAST was determined by comparing results with computerised tomography (CT) scan or operation report.

RESULTS

242 indicated nurse-performed FAST scans were included in the study. Nurse-performed FAST demonstrated sensitivity of 84.4% (95% CI 72.1-92.2) and specificity of 98.4% (CI 94.9-99.6), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.2% (CI 83.1-98.5) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.3% (91.0-97.7). Overall accuracy of nurse-performed FAST for the detection of free fluid was 95.0% (95% CI 91.3-97.3).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that, in a convenience sample of injured patients, nurse-performed FAST achieved similar accuracy to previously published results of doctor-performed FAST. Future studies with greater patient numbers would be valuable.

Management of bleeding following major trauma: an updated European guideline

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient, which when implemented may improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document presents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature.

RESULTS

Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on coagulation support and monitoring and the appropriate use of local haemostatic measures, tourniquets, calcium and desmopressin in the bleeding trauma patient. The remaining recommendations have been reevaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline provides an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of critically injured bleeding trauma patients.

Findings and limitations of focused ultrasound as a possible screening test in stable adult patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a Greek study

Our objective is to underline the place of FAST (focus assessment by sonography for trauma) ultrasonography (US) in the investigation of blunt abdominal trauma. We retrospectively examined the ultrasound findings in 1,999 haemodynamically stable adult patients. These people were admitted to the emergency room (ER) for possible blunt abdominal trauma. All were stable at admission and a FAST ultrasound examination was made. Initial findings were compared with the clinical course after at least 24 h of observation time and CT results. Among the 1,999 US examinations, abnormalities were found in 109 (5.5%) cases. Among them, 102 had free peritoneal fluid, and in 58 examinations, ruptures, lacerations or haematomas were demonstrated. Despite its limitations, such as in cases involving uncooperative patients, excessive bowel gas, obesity and empty bladder, the FAST technique seems to be an accurate method to evaluate the possibility of abdominal blunt trauma in stable patients. Because of the high negative predictive value of the FAST technique in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma, we recommend that a stable patient with negative ultrasound results at admission remain under close observation for at least 12 or preferably 24 h before being discharged.

Renal trauma

Urinary tract injury occurs in 10% of all abdominal trauma patients, and the kidney is the most commonly injured organ in the urinary tract. CT with contrast enhancement is the modality of choice for cross-sectional imaging of renal trauma because it quickly and accurately can demonstrate injury to the renal parenchyma, renal pedicles, and associated abdominal or retroperitoneal organs. This article reviews the mechanism, clinical features, imaging modalities, and CT imaging findings according to the classification of the renal trauma. Trauma to underlying abnormal kidneys, iatrogenic renal injuries, and complications of renal trauma are reviewed also.

Management of bleeding following major trauma: a European guideline

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based recommendations can be made with respect to many aspects of the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient, which when implemented may lead to improved patient outcomes.

METHODS

The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing guidelines for the management of bleeding following severe injury. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) hierarchy of evidence and were based on a systematic review of published literature.

RESULTS

Key recommendations include the following: The time elapsed between injury and operation should be minimised for patients in need of urgent surgical bleeding control, and patients presenting with haemorrhagic shock and an identified source of bleeding should undergo immediate surgical bleeding control unless initial resuscitation measures are successful. A damage control surgical approach is essential in the severely injured patient. Pelvic ring disruptions should be closed and stabilised, followed by appropriate angiographic embolisation or surgical bleeding control, including packing. Patients presenting with haemorrhagic shock and an unidentified source of bleeding should undergo immediate further assessment as appropriate using focused sonography, computed tomography, serum lactate, and/or base deficit measurements. This guideline also reviews appropriate physiological targets and suggested use and dosing of blood products, pharmacological agents, and coagulation factor replacement in the bleeding trauma patient.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach to the management of the bleeding trauma patient will help create circumstances in which optimal care can be provided. By their very nature, these guidelines reflect the current state-of-the-art and will need to be updated and revised as important new evidence becomes available.

Diagnostic accuracy of surgeon-performed focused abdominal sonography (FAST) in blunt paediatric trauma

AIM

To study the diagnostic accuracy and clinical efficacy of surgeon-performed focused abdominal sonography (FAST) in paediatric blunt abdominal trauma (BAT).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This was a prospective, single blinded study conducted at The Children's Hospital at Westmead Sydney (CHW). All patients with BAT that justified a trauma call activated on presentation to the Emergency Department (ED) had a FAST performed by the Trauma Fellow. The attending surgical team was blinded to the result of the FAST. An independent radiologist reviewed the FAST pictures, and the findings were compared with computerised tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), laparotomy and the clinical outcome of the patient. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients (39 M; 26 F) were enrolled in the study between February 2002 and January 2003. The age ranged between 4 months and 16 years. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 6 (range 1-38). FAST was performed in a mean time of 3 min. Inter-rater agreement was 96%. FAST was positive in nine as confirmed by a CT scan of the abdomen. Three patients underwent laparotomy, two for bowel injuries and one for a Grade III liver laceration. Of the remaining 76, 19 had a CT, which showed evidence of intra-abdominal injury in seven patients. There were two false negative studies resulting in a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 100%, negative predictive value of 97%, positive predictive value of 100% and an accuracy of 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon-performed FAST for BAT was safe and accurate with a high specificity. It would seem a potentially valuable tool in the evaluation of paediatric blunt trauma victims for free fluid within the peritoneal cavity.

The fast is positive, now what? Derivation of a clinical decision rule to determine the need for therapeutic laparotomy in adults with blunt torso trauma and a positive trauma ultrasound

INTRODUCTION

The object of this study was to derive a clinical decision rule for therapeutic laparotomy among adult blunt trauma patients with a positive abdominal ultrasound for trauma (FAST) examination.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the trauma registry and medical records of all critical trauma patients who underwent a FAST examination in the emergency department (ED) in a university Level I trauma center over a 3-year period. Blunt trauma patients aged >16 years who had a positive FAST examination (defined as the presence of intraperitoneal fluid) were eligible. We selected seven clinical and ultrasound variables available during ED resuscitation for analysis: age, presence of an episode of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 torr in the ED), presence of abdominal tenderness, chest injury, pelvic fracture, femur fracture, and FAST fluid location (right upper quadrant [RUQ] only; RUQ plus other location; other location only). The primary outcome variable was whether a laparotomy was performed and whether this laparotomy was needed to provide the definitive surgical intervention ("therapeutic laparotomy"). We analyzed the variables using binary recursive partitioning analysis to create a decision rule.

RESULTS

There were 2336 FAST examinations performed during the study period, resulting in 230 (9.8%) positive examinations in patients meeting inclusion criteria. There were 135 patients who had therapeutic laparotomies and 95 who did not need laparotomy. The groups were similar in baseline characteristics. In the recursive partitioning analysis, the first node in the decision tree was the presence of fluid in the RUQ. Of the 144 patients with RUQ fluid, 105 (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 64%-80%) required therapeutic laparotomy. Of the 86 patients without RUQ fluid, 30 (35%, 95% CI 25%-46%) nevertheless required therapeutic laparotomies, and the variables blood pressure, femur fracture, abdominal tenderness, and age further divided these patient into high- and low-risk groups. Of the 12 patients without RUQ fluid who had normal blood pressures, no femur fractures, no abdominal tenderness, and were aged 60 years and younger, none (95% CI 0%-22%) required therapeutic laparotomy. In conclusion, given a positive FAST examination, the presence of fluid in the RUQ is an important predictor of the need for therapeutic laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of fluid in the RUQ, there are other clinical variables that may allow for the development of a clinical decision rule regarding the need for therapeutic laparotomy.

Association between compliance with methodological standards of diagnostic research and reported test accuracy: meta-analysis of focused assessment of US for trauma

PURPOSE

To study whether compliance with methodological standards affected the reported accuracy of screening ultrasonography (US) for trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Meta-analysis was conducted of prospective investigations in which US was compared with any diagnostic reference test in patients with suspected abdominal injury. Reports were retrieved from electronic databases without language restrictions; added information was gained with manual search. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological rigor by using 27 items contained in the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) checklist and the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews (QUADAS) instrument. Inconsistencies were resolved by means of consensus. Summary receiver operating characteristics and random-effects meta-regression were used to model the effect of methodological standards and other study features on US accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 62 trials, which included a total of 18,167 participants, were eligible for meta-analysis. The average proportion of men or boys was 71.7%, the mean age was 30.6 years +/- 10.8 (standard deviation), and the mean injury severity score was 16.7 +/- 8.3. The prevalence of abdominal trauma was 25.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.1%, 29.1%). Pooled overall sensitivity and specificity of US were 78.9% (95% CI: 74.9%, 82.9%) and 99.2% (95% CI: 99.0%, 99.4%), respectively. Varying end points (hemoperitoneum or organ damage) did not change these results. US accuracy was much lower in children (sensitivity, 57.9%; specificity, 94.3%). Strong heterogeneity was observed in sensitivity, whereas specificity remained constant across trials. There was evidence of publication bias. Initial interobserver agreement with methodological standards ranged from poor (kappa = 0.03, independent verification of US findings) to perfect (kappa = 1.00, sufficiently short interval between US and reference test). By consensus, studies fulfilled a median of 13 methodological criteria (range, five to 20 criteria). In investigations that lacked individual methodological standards, researchers overestimated pooled sensitivity, with predicted differences of 9%-18%. The use of a single reference test, specification of the number of excluded patients, and calculation of CIs independently contributed to predicted sensitivity in a multivariate model. In 16 investigations (1309 subjects), a single reference test was used, which provided a combined sensitivity of 66.0% (95% CI: 56.2%, 75.8%).

CONCLUSION

Bias-adjusted sensitivity of screening US for trauma is low. Adherence to methodological standards included in appraisal instruments like STARD and QUADAS is crucial to obtain valid estimates of test accuracy.

Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography is regarded as the tool of choice for early diagnostic investigations in patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma. Although its sensitivity is too low for definite exclusion of abdominal organ injury, proponents of ultrasound argue that ultrasound-based clinical pathways enhance the speed of primary trauma assessment, reduce the number of computed tomography scans and cut costs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of trauma algorithms that include ultrasound examinations in patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CCMED, publishers' databases, controlled trials registers and the Internet. Bibliographies of identified articles and congress abstracts were handsearched. Trials were obtained from the Cochrane Injuries Group's trials register. Authors were contacted for further information and individual patient data.

PARTICIPANTS

patients with blunt torso, abdominal or multiple trauma undergoing diagnostic investigations for abdominal organ injury.

INTERVENTIONS

diagnostic algorithms comprising emergency ultrasonography (US).

CONTROLS

diagnostic algorithms without US ultrasound examinations (e.g. primary computed tomography [CT] or diagnostic peritoneal lavage [DPL]).

OUTCOME MEASURES

mortality, use of CT and DPL, cost-effectiveness, laparotomy and negative laparotomy rates, delayed diagnoses, and quality of life.

STUDIES

randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials (qRCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RRs), risk differences (RDs) and weighted mean differences, each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated by fixed- or random-effects modelling, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs with US in the experimental arm and another with US in the control group. We also considered two qRCTs. Overall, trials were of moderate methodological quality. Few authors responded to our written inquiries seeking to resolve controversial issues and to obtain individual patient data. We were able to pool data from two trials comprising 1037 patients for primary endpoint analysis (i.e. mortality). The relative risk in favour of the no-US arm was 1.4 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.08). Because of a lack of details, the meaning of this observation remains unclear. There was a marginal benefit with US-based pathways in reducing CT scans (random-effects RD -0.46; 95% CI -1.00 to 0.13), offset by trials of higher methodological rigour. No differences were observed in DPL and laparotomy rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to justify promotion of ultrasound-based clinical pathways in diagnosing patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma.

Ultrasound in abdominal trauma

This article reviews current issues regarding the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination. Technical performance issues, decision-making and practice algorithms, fluid volume and scoring systems, proficiency and training, and the role of the FAST in pediatric trauma are covered. This article examines the FAST examination from a practical, evidenced-based stand-point.

Controversies in emergency radiology. CT versus ultrasound in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma

There has been controversy regarding ultrasonography (US) versus CT in blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). Each modality has its strengths and weaknesses. US is fast and allows resuscitative efforts to proceed while the patient is being scanned. However, the sensitivity of US is inferior to that of CT, and there is user variability. CT is better at determining the extent, type, and grade of injury, resulting in a more tailored therapeutic plan and safe conservative management of many patients. However, CT involves ionizing radiation, cannot be performed portably, and requires only visual monitoring while scanning. Given each modality's strengths and weaknesses we conclude that CT is the preferred examination when the BAT patient is stable or moderately stable, enough to be taken to CT. If a BAT patient is unstable, US is beneficial in screening for certain injuries or large hemoperitoneum prior to an exploratory laparotomy.

Clinical importance of intraperitoneal fluid in patients with blunt intra-abdominal injury

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of intraperitoneal fluid (IF) in blunt trauma patients with intra-abdominal injuries, to determine the rate of exploratory laparotomy in patients with and without IF, and to identify the location of this IF. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 604 patients with intra-abdominal injuries after blunt trauma who were admitted to a level 1 trauma center over a 42-month period. Patients were considered to have intra-abdominal injuries if an injury to the spleen, liver, urinary tract, pancreas, adrenal glands, gallbladder, or gastrointestinal tract was identified on abdominal computed tomography (CT) or at exploratory laparotomy. Patients were considered to have IF if fluid was identified on abdominal CT or during exploratory laparotomy. In patients undergoing abdominal CT or abdominal ultrasound (US), the specific location of the IF was identified. Four hundred forty-three (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 69 - 77%) of the 604 patients with intra-abdominal injuries had IF. Patients with IF had an increased risk of laparotomy (344/443 [78%] v 44/161 [27%], odds ratio = 9.2, 95% CI 6.1-13.9). Of the 539 patients undergoing abdominal CT or abdominal US, IF was identified in 389 (72%) and was visualized in the following locations: 258 of 389 (66%) in Morison's pouch, 216 of 389 (56%) in the left upper quadrant, 187 of 389 (48%) in the pelvis, and 139 of 390 (36%) in paracolic gutters. Three patients with IF visualized solely in the paracolic gutters underwent laparotomy. The majority of patients with intra-abdominal injuries have IF, and these patients are more likely to undergo laparotomy. Morison's pouch is the most common location for IF to be detected with radiologic imaging. However, visualization of the paracolic gutters with abdominal US may detect IF in patients with intra-abdominal injuries that would otherwise not be detected by US.