Efficacy of the Canadian CT Head Rule in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Minor Head Injury.

Introduction: Approximately, one in three computed tomography (CT) scans performed for head injury may be avoidable. We evaluate the efficacy of the Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) on head CT imaging in minor head injury (MHI) and its association of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and structural abnormality. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study from May 2018 to October 2019 in the Department of Emergency Medicine, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Thiruvalla, Kerala. The CCHR is applied to patients with MHIs (GCS 13-15) after initial stabilization and it is ascertained, if they require a non-contrast CT head and imaging is done. For those who do not require CT head as per the CCHR are excluded from this study. After imaging the patients who have a positive finding on CT head are admitted and followed up if they underwent any neurosurgical intervention, those with no findings in CT head are discharged from the hospital. A total of 203 patients were included during study period. Results: A total of 203 patients were included in study with mean age of 49.5 years. Approximately, 70% (142) were male. Sensitivity of CCHR for predicting positive CT finding in the present study sample was 68% and specificity was 42.5%. Conclusion: Canadian CT head rule is a useful tool in the Emergency Department for predicting the requirement of CT in patients with MHI. Canadian CT head rule can reduce the number of CT scans ordered following MHI in ED, thus improving the healthcare costs. How to cite this article: Reddy A, Poonthottathil F, Jonnakuti R, Thomas R. Efficacy of the Canadian CT Head Rule in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Minor Head Injury. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(2):148-151.

Diagnostic accuracy of drooling, reluctance, oropharynx, others, and leukocytosis score as a predictor of mortality and complications following acute corrosive ingestion.

OBJECTIVES: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is considered the gold standard in assessing the severity of injury to the gastrointestinal tract following corrosive ingestion. Zargar's endoscopic grading of injury helps in prognostication as well as guiding management. Since the major burden of cases lies in resource-limited settings, the availability of endoscopic evaluation is a limiting factor. Hence, it is prudent to develop bedside tools that can be used as screening tools to identify patients at high risk of mortality and complications so that timely referrals and judicious utilization of resources can be made. Literature in this regard is limited and published studies have shown that clinical features fail to predict the severity of injury. We aimed our study to find the role of Drooling, Reluctance, Oropharynx, Others, and Leukocytosis (DROOL) score as a predictor of mortality and complications following acute corrosive ingestion. METHODS: This was a diagnostic accuracy study conducted in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care hospital in North India. We screened all cases of acute corrosive ingestion presented to our ED. We collected the data on demographic profile, clinical features, investigations, endoscopy findings, treatment, and DROOL score. We followed patients for up to 12 weeks for outcomes including mortality and complications. RESULTS: We studied 79 patients of acute corrosive ingestion. The median age was 26 years with a female predominance. Nausea, vomiting, and pain abdomen were the common symptoms. The median DROOL score was 4. The majority of our patients had normal to Zargar grade 1 injury to the stomach and esophagus. Out of 79 patients, 27 patients developed some complications. The overall mortality up to 12 weeks was 10%. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed, and the area under the ROC (AUROC) curve of Zargar classification in predicting overall complications was 0.909 (96% confidence interval [CI]: 0.842-0.975) and it was 0.775 (95% CI: 0.553-1.000) in predicting mortality. The AUROC of DROOL score in predicting overall complications was 0.932 (95% CI: 0.877-0.987) and the AUROC of DROOL score in predicting mortality was 0.864 (95% CI: 0.758-0.970). The ROC analysis showed that a DROOL score ≤4 has a sensitivity of 96.2% and a specificity of 77.8% in predicting overall complications. Similarly, DROOL score ≤5 has a sensitivity of 81.7% and a specificity of 62.5% in predicting the development of mortality. Delong test showed that there was no statistically significant difference in Zargar versus DROOL score in terms of prediction of mortality and overall complications (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: DROOL score is comparable to Zargar score in identifying patients at high risk of mortality and complications. Hence, DROOL score can be used for risk stratification of patients presenting with corrosive ingestion.