Retinal hemorrhage variation in inertial versus contact head injuries

BACKGROUND

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is frequently accompanied by dense/extensive retinal hemorrhages to the periphery with or without retinoschisis (complex retinal hemorrhages, cRH). cRH are uncommon without AHT or major trauma.

OBJECTIVE

The study objectives were to determine whether cRH are associated with inertial vs. contact mechanisms and are primary vs. secondary injuries.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

This retrospective study utilized a de-identified PediBIRN database of 701 children <3-years-old presenting to intensive care for head trauma. Children with motor vehicle related trauma and preexisting brain abnormalities were excluded. All had imaging showing head injury and a dedicated ophthalmology examination.

METHODS

Contact injuries included craniofacial soft tissue injuries, skull fractures and epidural hematoma. Inertial injuries included acute impairment or loss of consciousness and/or bilateral and/or interhemispheric subdural hemorrhage. Abuse was defined in two ways, by 1) predetermined criteria and 2) caretaking physicians/multidisciplinary team's diagnostic consensus.

RESULTS

PediBIRN subjects with cRH frequently experienced inertial injury (99.4 % (308/310, OR = 53.74 (16.91-170.77)) but infrequently isolated contact trauma (0.6 % (2/310), OR = 0.02 (0.0004-0.06)). Inertial injuries predominated over contact trauma among children with cRH sorted AHT by predetermined criteria (99.1 % (237/239), OR = 20.20 (6.09-67.01) vs 0.5 % (2/339), OR = 0.04 (0.01-0.17)). Fifty-nine percent of patients with cRH, <24 h altered consciousness, and inertial injuries lacked imaging evidence of brain hypoxia, ischemia, or swelling.

CONCLUSIONS

cRH are significantly associated with inertial angular acceleration forces. They can occur without brain hypoxia, ischemia or swelling suggesting they are not secondary injuries.

Iatrogenic Flexion-Related Classic Metaphyseal Lesion of the Distal Tibia: Three Cases

BACKGROUND

Classic metaphyseal lesions (CMLs) should raise concern for nonaccidental trauma. However, iatrogenic causes for CMLs have increasingly been described and warrant close consideration. Increasing the clinical understanding of CML mechanics and their relation to often routine medical procedures will enhance provider awareness and expand the differential diagnosis when these otherwise highly concerning injuries are identified.

CASE REPORTS

We describe three clinical cases where suspected iatrogenic dorsiflexion or plantar flexion resulted in an isolated distal tibia CML. Respectively, we present heel-stick testing and i.v. line placement as clinical correlates of these two mechanisms. Although prior reports have aimed to describe iatrogenic CML etiologies, they have not focused on dorsiflexion or plantar flexion as predominant mechanisms of injury. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Emergency physicians are critical to the surveillance and identification of nonaccidental trauma. Given that children oftentimes present to the emergency department with subtle yet concerning signs of maltreatment, an emergency physician must be aware of the potential causes of injury as well as the recommended response. Although avoiding missed cases of abuse and improving the detection of injuries is crucial for child health and well-being, failing to consider or recognize alternative explanations could also have serious implications for a child and their caregivers.

Skeletal survey yields in low vs. high risk pediatric patients with skull fractures

BACKGROUND

To assess for occult fractures, physicians often opt to obtain skeletal surveys (SS) in young, acutely head-injured patients who present with skull fractures. Data informing optimal decision management are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the positive yields of radiologic SS in young patients with skull fractures presumed to be at low vs. high risk for abuse.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

476 acutely head injured, skull-fractured patients <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between February 2011 and March 2021.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of the combined, prospective Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN) data set.

RESULTS

204 (43 %) of 476 patients had simple, linear, parietal skull fractures. 272 (57 %) had more complex skull fracture(s). Only 315 (66 %) of 476 patients underwent SS, including 102 (32 %) patients presumed to be at low risk for abuse (patients who presented with a consistent history of accidental trauma; intracranial injuries no deeper than the cortical brain; and no respiratory compromise, alteration or loss of consciousness, seizures, or skin injuries suspicious for abuse). Only one of 102 low risk patients revealed findings indicative of abuse. In two other low risk patients, SS helped to confirm metabolic bone disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 1 % of low risk patients under three years of age who presented with simple or complex skull fracture(s) revealed other abusive fractures. Our results could inform efforts to reduce unnecessary skeletal surveys.

The association of subcortical brain injury and abusive head trauma

BACKGROUND

Abusive head trauma (AHT) remains a major pediatric problem with diagnostic challenges. A small pilot study previously associated subcortical brain injury with AHT.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association of subcortical injury on neuroimaging with the diagnosis of AHT.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Children <3 years with acute TBI admitted to 18 PICUs between 2011 and 2021.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of existing, combined, de-identified, cross-sectional dataset.

RESULTS

Deepest location of visible injury was characterized as scalp/skull/epidural (n = 170), subarachnoid/subdural (n = 386), cortical brain (n = 170), or subcortical brain (n = 247) (total n = 973). Subcortical injury was significantly associated with AHT using both physicians' diagnostic impression (OR: 8.41 [95 % CI: 5.82-12.44]) and a priori definitional criteria (OR: 5.99 [95 % CI: 4.31-8.43]). Caregiver reports consistent with the child's gross motor skills and historically consistent with repetition decreased as deepest location of injury increased, p < 0.001. Patients with subcortical injuries were significantly more likely to have traumatic extracranial injuries such as rib fractures (OR 3.36, 95 % CI 2.30-4.92) or retinal hemorrhages (OR 5.97, 95 % CI 4.35-8.24), respiratory compromise (OR 12.12, 95 % CI 8.49-17.62), circulatory compromise (OR 6.71, 95 % CI 4.87-9.29), seizures (OR 3.18, 95 % CI 2.35-4.29), and acute encephalopathy (OR 12.44, 95 % CI 8.16-19.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Subcortical injury is associated with a diagnosis of AHT, historical inaccuracies concerning for abuse, traumatic extracranial injuries, and increased severity of illness including respiratory and circulatory compromise, seizures, and prolonged loss of consciousness. Presence of subcortical injury should be considered as one component of the complex AHT diagnostic process.

Evaluation for Bleeding Disorders in Suspected Child Abuse

Bruising or bleeding in a child can raise the concern for child abuse. Assessing whether the findings are the result of trauma and/or whether the child has a bleeding disorder is critical. Many bleeding disorders are rare, and not every child with bruising/bleeding that may raise a concern for abuse requires an evaluation for bleeding disorders. However, in some instances, bleeding disorders can present in a manner similar to child abuse. Bleeding disorders cannot be ruled out solely on the basis of patient and family history, no matter how extensive. The history and clinical evaluation can be used to determine the necessity of an evaluation for a possible bleeding disorder, and prevalence and known clinical presentations of individual bleeding disorders can be used to guide the extent of laboratory testing. This clinical report provides guidance to pediatricians and other clinicians regarding the evaluation for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.

An analysis of physicians' diagnostic reasoning regarding pediatric abusive head trauma

BACKGROUND

Physician diagnoses of abusive head trauma (AHT) have been criticized for circular reasoning and over-reliance on a "triad" of findings. Absent a gold standard, analyses that apply restrictive reference standards for AHT and non-AHT could serve to confirm or refute these criticisms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical presentations and injuries in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT, and with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted. To measure the triad's AHT test performance in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Acutely head injured patients <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

Secondary analyses of existing, combined, cross-sectional datasets. Probability values and odds ratios were used to identify and characterize differences. Test performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.

RESULTS

Compared to patients with witnessed non-AHT (n = 100), patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) presented more frequently with respiratory compromise (OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.50-5.75); prolonged encephalopathy (OR 5.23, 95% CI: 2.51-10.89); torso, ear, or neck bruising (OR 11.87, 95% CI: 4.48-31.48); bilateral subdural hemorrhages (OR 8.21, 95% CI: 3.94-17.13); diffuse brain hypoxia, ischemia, or swelling (OR 6.51, 95% CI: 3.06-13.02); and dense, extensive retinal hemorrhages (OR 7.59, 95% CI: 2.85-20.25). All differences were statistically significant (p ≤ .001). No significant differences were observed in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) vs. patients diagnosed with AHT not witnessed/admitted (n = 438). The triad demonstrated AHT specificity and positive predictive value ≥0.96.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT substantiate prior reports. The complete absence of differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted supports an impression that physicians apply diagnostic reasoning informed by knowledge of previously reported injury patterns. Concern for abuse is justified in patients who present with "the triad."

Screening for pediatric abusive head trauma: Are three variables enough?

BACKGROUND

The PediBIRN 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) detects abusive head trauma (AHT) with 96% sensitivity in pediatric intensive care (PICU) settings. Preliminary analysis of its performance in Pediatric Emergency Department settings found that elimination of its fourth predictor variable enhanced screening accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the AHT screening performances of the "PediBIRN-4" CDR vs. the simplified 3-variable CDR in PICU settings.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS

973 acutely head-injured children <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between February 2011 and March 2021.

METHODS

Retrospective, secondary analysis of the combined, prospective PediBIRN data sets. AHT definitional criteria and physicians' diagnoses were applied iteratively to sort patients into abusive vs. other head trauma cohorts. Outcome measures of CDR performance included sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, ROC AUC, and the correlation between each CDR's patient-specific estimates of AHT probability and the overall positive yield of patients' completed abuse evaluations.

RESULTS

Applied accurately and consistently, both CDR's would have performed with sensitivity ≥93% and negative predictive value ≥91%. Eliminating the PediBIRN-4's fourth predictor variable resulted in significantly higher specificity (↑'d ≥19%), positive predictive value (↑'d ≥8%), and ROC AUC (↑'d ≥5%), but a 3% reduction in sensitivity. Both CDRs provided patient-specific estimates of abuse probability very strongly correlated with the positive yield of patients' completed abuse evaluations (Pearson's r = 0.95 and 0.91, p = .13).

CONCLUSION

The PediBIRN 3-variable CDR performed with greater AHT screening accuracy than the 4-variable CDR. Both are good predictors of the results of patients' subsequent completed abuse evaluations.

Abusive Head Trauma and a Delay in Presentation for Care

OBJECTIVES

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is the leading cause of death from trauma in children less than 2 years of age. A delay in presentation for care has been reported as a risk factor for abuse; however, there has been limited research on this topic. We compare children diagnosed with AHT to children diagnosed with accidental head trauma to determine if there is a delay in presentation.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied children less than 6 years old who had acute head injury and were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit at a pediatric hospital from 2013 to 2017. Cases were reviewed to determine the duration from symptom onset to presentation to care and the nature of the head injury (abusive vs accidental).

RESULTS

A total of 59 children met inclusion criteria. Patients who had AHT were significantly more likely to present to care more than 30 minutes after symptom onset (P = 0.0015). Children who had AHT were more likely to be younger (median, 4 vs 31 months; P < 0.0001) and receive Medicaid (P < 0.0001) than those who had accidental head trauma. Patients who had AHT were more likely to have a longer length of stay (median, 11 vs 3 days; P < 0.0001) and were less likely to be discharged home than patients who had accidental head trauma (38% vs 84%; P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Children who had AHT were more likely to have a delayed presentation for care as compared with children whose head trauma was accidental. A delay in care should prompt clinicians to strongly consider a workup for abusive injury.

A Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed Abusive Head Trauma in Pediatric Intensive Care Settings

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the impact of the PediBIRN (Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network) 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) on abuse evaluations and missed abusive head trauma in pediatric intensive care settings.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cluster randomized trial. Participants included 8 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in US academic medical centers; PICU and child abuse physicians; and consecutive patients with acute head injures <3 years (n = 183 and n = 237, intervention vs control). PICUs were stratified by patient volumes, pair-matched, and randomized equally to intervention or control conditions. Randomization was concealed from the biostatistician. Physician-directed, cluster-level interventions included initial and booster training, access to an abusive head trauma probability calculator, and information sessions. Outcomes included "higher risk" patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse (with skeletal survey and retinal examination), potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (patients lacking either evaluation), and estimates of missed abusive head trauma (among potential cases). Group comparisons were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Intervention physicians evaluated a greater proportion of higher risk patients thoroughly (81% vs 73%, P = .11) and had fewer potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (21% vs 32%, P = .05), although estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma did not differ (7% vs 13%, P = .22). From baseline (in previous studies) to trial, the change in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly (67%→81% vs 78%→73%, P = .01), and potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (40%→21% vs 29%→32%, P = .003), diverged significantly. We did not identify a significant divergence in the number of estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma (15%→7% vs 11%→13%, P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

PediBIRN-4 CDR application facilitated changes in abuse evaluations that reduced potential cases of missed abusive head trauma in PICU settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03162354.

Estimating the Relevance of Historical Red Flags in the Diagnosis of Abusive Head Trauma

OBJECTIVE

To replicate the previously published finding that the absence of a history of trauma in a child with obvious traumatic head injuries demonstrates high specificity and high positive predictive value (PPV) for abusive head trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a deidentified, cross-sectional dataset containing prospective data on 346 young children with acute head injury hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between 2010 and 2013, to estimate the diagnostic relevance of a caregiver's specific denial of any trauma, changing history of accidental trauma, or history of accidental trauma inconsistent with the child's gross motor skills. Cases were categorized as definite or not definite abusive head trauma based solely on patients' clinical and radiologic findings. For each presumptive historical "red flag," we calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratio (LR) with 95% CI for definite abusive head trauma in all patients and also in cohorts with normal, abnormal, or persistent abnormal neurologic status.

RESULTS

A caregiver's specific denial of any trauma demonstrated a specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94), PPV of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88), and a positive LR (LR+) of 4.83 (95% CI, 3.07-7.61) for definite abusive head trauma in all patients. Specificity and LR+ were lowest-not highest-in patients with persistent neurologic abnormalities. The 2 other historical red flags showed similar trends.

CONCLUSIONS

A caregiver's specific denial of any trauma, changing history of accidental trauma, or history of accidental trauma that is developmentally inconsistent are each highly specific (>0.90) but may provide weaker support than previously reported for a diagnosis of abusive head trauma in patients with persistent neurologic abnormalities.

Ongoing Pediatric Health Care for the Child Who Has Been Maltreated

Pediatricians provide continuous medical care and anticipatory guidance for children who have been reported to state child protection agencies, including tribal child protection agencies, because of suspected child maltreatment. Because families may continue their relationships with their pediatricians after these reports, these primary care providers are in a unique position to recognize and manage the physical, developmental, academic, and emotional consequences of maltreatment and exposure to childhood adversity. Substantial information is available to optimize follow-up medical care of maltreated children. This new clinical report will provide guidance to pediatricians about how they can best oversee and foster the optimal physical health, growth, and development of children who have been maltreated and remain in the care of their biological family or are returned to their care by Child Protective Services agencies. The report describes the pediatrician's role in helping to strengthen families' and caregivers' capabilities and competencies and in promoting and maximizing high-quality services for their families in their community. Pediatricians should refer to other reports and policies from the American Academy of Pediatrics for more information about the emotional and behavioral consequences of child maltreatment and the treatment of these consequences.

Estimating the probability of abusive head trauma after abuse evaluation

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based, patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability can inform physicians' decisions to evaluate, confirm, exclude, and/or report suspected child abuse.

OBJECTIVE

To derive a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma that incorporates the (positive or negative) predictive contributions of patients' completed skeletal surveys and retinal exams.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

500 acutely head-injured children under three years of age hospitalized for intensive care at one of 18 sites between 2010 and 2013.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of an existing, cross-sectional, prospective dataset, including (1) multivariable logistic regression to impute the results of abuse evaluations never ordered or completed, (2) regularized logistic regression to derive a novel clinical prediction rule that incorporates the results of completed abuse evaluations, and (3) application of the new prediction rule to calculate patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability for observed combinations of its predictor variables.

RESULTS

Applying a mean probability threshold of >0.5 to classify patients as abused, the 7-variable clinical prediction rule derived in this study demonstrated sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79) and specificity 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92). Patient-specific estimates of abusive head trauma probability for 72 observed combinations of its seven predictor variables ranged from 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) to 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Seven variables facilitate patient-specific estimation of abusive head trauma probability after abuse evaluation in intensive care settings.

Clinical comparison of ocular and systemic findings in diagnosed cases of abusive and non-abusive head trauma

Purpose

Child abuse is a leading cause of death in infants, which is often associated with abusive head trauma (AHT). The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to identify ocular and systemic findings in confirmed cases of AHT and compare them to a group of non-abusive head trauma (NAHT) patients.

Patients and methods

A retrospective chart review of 165 patients with accidental and non-accidental trauma admitted between 2013 and 2015 to Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha, NE, USA, was performed. Diagnosis of AHT was made after the analysis of ocular and systemic findings by various subspecialists. The NAHT group consisted of accidental trauma, abusive trauma without significant apparent head involvement on initial evaluation and unconfirmed AHT cases.

Results

Of the 165 presenting cases, 30 patients were diagnosed with AHT and 127 were diagnosed with NAHT. Ocular findings in AHT patients were significant for retinal hemorrhages (63%) and vitreous hemorrhages (37%), while NAHT patients had no ocular findings (p<0.001). Neuroimaging revealed subdural hemorrhages (SDHs) in 29 out of 30 AHT patients (97%) and in 27 out of 127 NAHT patients (21%). Seizures were present in 43% of AHT patients (n=13) and only in 8% of NAHT patients (n=10).

Conclusion

AHT has statistically significant findings of retinal and vitreous hemorrhages. The absence of diffuse retinal hemorrhages, however, does not preclude the AHT diagnosis as more than one-third of AHT patients lacked retinal hemorrhages. SDHs, loss of consciousness and history of seizures also have high correlation with a diagnosis of AHT.

MR detection of retinal hemorrhages: correlation with graded ophthalmologic exam

BACKGROUND

Dilated fundoscopic exam is considered the gold standard for detecting retinal hemorrhage, but expertise in obtaining this exam is not always immediately available. MRI can detect retinal hemorrhages, but correlation of the grade or severity of retinal hemorrhage on dilated fundoscopic exam with retinal hemorrhage visibility on MRI has not been described.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the value of standard brain protocol MRI in detecting retinal hemorrhage and to determine whether there is any correlation with MR detection of retinal hemorrhage and the dilated fundoscopic exam grade of hemorrhage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 77 children <2 years old who were seen for head trauma from April 2007 to July 2013 and had both brain MRI and dilated fundoscopic exam or retinal camera images. A staff pediatric radiologist and radiology resident reviewed the MR images. Retinal hemorrhages were graded by a chief ophthalmology resident on a 12-point scale based on the retinal hemorrhage type, size, location and extent as seen on review of retinal camera images and detailed reports by ophthalmologists. Higher scores indicated increased severity of retinal hemorrhages.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the median grade of retinal hemorrhage examination between children who had retinal hemorrhage detected on MRI and children who did not have retinal hemorrhage detected on MRI (P = 0.02). When examination grade was categorized as low-grade (1-4), moderate-grade (5-8) or high-grade (>8) hemorrhage, there was a statistically significant association between exam grade and diagnosis based on MRI (P = 0.008). For example, only 14% of children with low-grade retinal hemorrhages were identified on MRI compared to 76% of children with high-grade hemorrhages. MR detection of retinal hemorrhage demonstrated a sensitivity of 61%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 63%. Retinal hemorrhage was best seen on the gradient recalled echo (GRE) sequences.

CONCLUSION

MRI using routine brain protocol demonstrated 61% sensitivity and 100% specificity in detecting retinal hemorrhage. High-grade hemorrhage was more often detected on MRI than low-grade hemorrhage, 76% vs. 14%. GRE images were the most sensitive for detection of retinal hemorrhages. A dilated fundoscopic exam can be difficult to obtain in infancy, especially in critically ill or non-sedated children. MRI is a useful modality for added documentation of retinal hemorrhage and can be used as an alternative exam when ophthalmologic expertise or retinal camera images are unavailable. Additionally, identification of retinal hemorrhage on MRI can raise the possibility of abuse in children presenting with nonspecific findings.