Cost-effectiveness of immediate total-body CT in patients with severe trauma (REACT-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: The effect of immediate total-body CT (iTBCT) on health economic aspects in patients with severe trauma is an underreported issue. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of iTBCT compared with conventional radiological imaging with selective CT (standard work-up (STWU)) during the initial trauma evaluation. METHODS: In this multicentre RCT, adult patients with a high suspicion of severe injury were randomized in-hospital to iTBCT or STWU. Hospital healthcare costs were determined for the first 6 months after the injury. The probability of iTBCT being cost-effective was calculated for various levels of willingness-to-pay per extra patient alive. RESULTS: A total of 928 Dutch patients with complete clinical follow-up were included. Mean costs of hospital care were €25 809 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated (bca) c.i. €22 617 to €29 137) for the iTBCT group and €26 155 (€23 050 to €29 344) for the STWU group, a difference per patient in favour of iTBCT of €346 (€4987 to €4328) (P = 0.876). Proportions of patients alive at 6 months were not different. The proportion of patients alive without serious morbidity was 61.6 per cent in the iTBCT group versus 66.7 per cent in the STWU group (difference -5.1 per cent; P = 0.104). The probability of iTBCT being cost-effective in keeping patients alive remained below 0.56 for the whole group, but was higher in patients with multiple trauma (0.8-0.9) and in those with traumatic brain injury (more than 0.9). CONCLUSION: Economically, from a hospital healthcare provider perspective, iTBCT should be the diagnostic strategy of first choice in patients with multiple trauma or traumatic brain injury.

Early detection of severe injuries after major trauma by immediate total-body CT scouts.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of immediate total-body CT (iTBCT) scouts during primary trauma care could be clinically relevant for early detection and treatment of specific major injuries. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic usefulness of TBCT scouts in detecting life-threatening chest and pelvic injuries. METHODS: All patients who underwent an iTBCT during their primary trauma assessment in one trauma center between April 2011 and November 2014 were retrospectively included. Two experienced trauma surgeons and two emergency radiologists evaluated iTBCT scouts with structured questionnaires. Inter-observer agreement and diagnostic properties were calculated for endotracheal tube position and identification of pneumo- and/or hemothorax and pelvic fractures. Diagnostic properties of iTBCT scouts for indication for chest tube placement and pelvic binder application were calculated in comparison to decision based on iTBCT. RESULTS: In total 220 patients with a median age of 37 years (IQR 26-59) were selected with a median Injury Severity Score of 18 (IQR 9-27). There was moderate to substantial inter-observer agreement and low false positive rates for pneumo- and/or hemothorax and for severe pelvic fractures by iTBCT scouts. For 19.8%-22.5% of the endotracheal intubated patients trauma surgeons stated that repositioning of the tube was indicated. Positive predictive value and sensitivity were respectively 100% (95%CI 52%-100%) and 50% (95%CI 22%-78%) for decisions on chest tube placement by trauma surgeon 1 and 67% (95%CI 13%-98%) and 22% (95%CI 4%-60%) for decisions by trauma surgeon 2. Only in one of 14 patients the pelvic binder was applied after iTBCT acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: iTBCT scouts can be useful for early detection of pneumo- and/or hemothorax and severe pelvic fractures. Decision for chest tube placement based on iTBCT scouts alone is not recommended.

Prehospital care of spinal injuries: a historical quest for reasoning and evidence.

PURPOSE: The practice of prehospital immobilization is coming under increasing scrutiny. Unravelling the historical sequence of prehospital immobilization might shed more light on this matter and help resolve the situation. Main purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development and reasoning behind the implementation of prehospital spine immobilization. METHODS: An extensive search throughout historical literature and recent evidence based studies was conducted. RESULTS: The history of treating spinal injuries dates back to prehistoric times. Descriptions of prehospital spinal immobilization are more recent and span two distinct periods. First documentation of its use comes from the early 19th century, when prehospital trauma care was introduced on the battlefields of the Napoleonic wars. The advent of radiology gradually helped to clarify the underlying pathology. In recent decades, adoption of advanced trauma life support has elevated in-hospital trauma-care to an high standard. Practice of in-hospital spine immobilization in case of suspected injury has also been implemented as standard-care in prehospital setting. Evidence for and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided in recent evidence-based studies. In addition, recent studies have shown negative side-effects of immobilisation in penetrating injuries. CONCLUSION: Although widely implementation of spinal immobilization to prevent spinal cord injury in both penetrating and blunt injury, it cannot be explained historically. Furthermore, there is no high-level scientific evidence to support or reject immobilisation in blunt injury. Since evidence in favour and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided, the present situation appears to have reached something of a deadlock. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Value of prehospital assessment of spine fracture by paramedics.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines state that trauma patients at risk of spine injury should undergo prehospital spine immobilization to reduce the risk of neurological deterioration. Although this approach has been accepted and implemented as a standard for decades, there is little scientific evidence to support it. Furthermore, the potential dangers and sequelae of spine immobilization have been extensively reported. The role of the paramedic in this process has not yet been examined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of prehospital evaluations for the presence of spine fractures made by paramedics. METHODS: All patients who presented with prehospital spine immobilization at our level II trauma center between January 2013 and January 2014 were prospectively included in a database. Prior to the diagnosis, paramedics recorded the probability of a spine fracture after a prehospital examination. These predictions were compared with patient outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients were included that positive predictive value was 22%, negative predictive value was 95%, sensitivity was 92%, specificity was 30%, and accuracy was 41%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that paramedics cannot accurately predict spinal fractures.

Indications for total-body computed tomography in blunt trauma patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Total-body CT scanning (TBCT) could improve the initial in-hospital evaluation of severe trauma patients. Indications for TBCT, however, differ between trauma centers, so more insight in how to select patients that could benefit from TBCT is required. The aim of this review was to give an overview of currently used indications for total-body CT in trauma patients and to describe mortality and Injury Severity Scores of patient groups selected for TBCT. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies evaluating or describing criteria for selection of patients with potentially severe injuries for TBCT during initial trauma care were included. Also, studies comparing total-body CT during the initial assessment of injured patients with conventional imaging and selective CT in specific patient groups were included. RESULTS: Thirty eligible studies were identified. Three studies evaluated indications for TBCT in trauma with divergent methods. Combinations of compromised vital parameters, severe trauma mechanisms and clinical suspicion on severe injuries are often used indications; however, clinical judgement is used as well. Studies describing TBCT indications selected patients in different ways and were difficult to compare regarding mortality and injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: Indications for TBCT in trauma show a wide variety in structure and cut-off values for vital parameters and trauma mechanism dimensions. Consensus on indications for TBCT in trauma is lacking.

Radiological findings and radiation exposure during trauma workup in a cohort of 1124 level 1 trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: During the initial assessment of patients with potential severe injuries, radiological examinations are performed in order to rapidly diagnose clinically relevant injuries. Previous studies have shown that performing these examinations routinely is not always necessary and that trauma patients are exposed to substantial radiation doses. The aim of this study was to assess the amount and findings of radiological examinations during the initial assessment of trauma patients and to determine the radiation doses to which these patients are exposed to. METHODS: We analyzed the 1124 patients included in a randomized trial. All radiological examinations during the initial assessment (i.e., primary and secondary survey) were assessed. The examination results were categorized as positive findings (i.e., (suspicion for) traumatic injury) and normal findings. The effective radiation doses for the examinations were calculated separately for each patient. RESULTS: Eight hundred and three patients were male (71 %), median age was 38 years, and 1079 patients sustained blunt trauma (96 %). During initial assessment, almost 3900 X-rays were performed, of which 25.4 % showed positive findings. FAST of the abdomen was performed in 989 patients (88 %), with positive findings in 10.6 %. Additional CT scanning of specific body regions was performed 1890 times in 813 patients (72.1 %), of which approximately 43.4 % revealed positive findings. Hemodynamically stable patients showed more normal findings on the radiographic studies than unstable patients. The mean radiation doses for the total population was 8.46 mSv (±7.7) and for polytraumatized patients (ISS ≥ 16) 14.3 mSv (±9.5). CONCLUSION: Radiological diagnostics during initial assessment of trauma patients show a high rate of normal findings in our trauma system. The radiation doses to which trauma patients are exposed are considerable. Considering that the majority of the injured patients are hemodynamically stable, we suggest more selective use of X-ray and CT scanning.

Incidence of spinal fractures in the Netherlands 1997-2012.

: To determine time trends of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization rates, spinal cord lesions and characteristics of patients with spinal fractures in the Netherlands. METHODS: In an observational database study we used the Dutch Injury Surveillance System to analyse spinal fracture-related ED visits, hospitalization rates and spinal cord lesions between 1997 and 2012. RESULTS: The total number of ED visits associated with spinal fractures increased from 4,507 in 1997 to 9,690 in 2012 (115% increase). The increase in the total number of fractures occurred in all age groups independently of gender. However, incidence rates increased more strongly with age and were higher in young males and ageing females. The hospitalization rate of diagnosed spinal fractures remained stable between 62 and 67%. The incidence of spinal cord lesions varied between 13.8 and 20.3 per million of the population over a period of 15 years. CONCLUSION: Spinal fracture-related ED visits are increasing in the Dutch population, independently of age or gender. The hospitalization rate and the absolute numbers of spinal cord lesions have remained stable over a period of 15 years. These findings are relevant for public health decision-making and resource allocation.

Incidental findings on total-body CT scans in trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Total-body Computed Tomography (CT) scans are increasingly used in trauma care. Herewith the observation of incidental findings, trauma unrelated findings, is also increased. The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of incidental findings in adult trauma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive trauma patients that underwent total-body CT scanning between January 2009 and December 2011 were analysed. Incidental findings were divided in three categories: category I (potentially severe condition, further diagnostic work-up is required), category II (diagnostic work-up dependent on patients' symptoms) and category III (findings of minor concern, no diagnostic work-up required). RESULTS: There were 2248 trauma room presentations; 321 patients underwent a total-body CT scan (14.3%). In 143 patients (44.5%), 186 incidental findings were reported. There were 13 category I findings (7.0%), 45 category II findings (24.2%) and 128 category III incidental findings (68.8%). Overall, 18 patients (5.6%) required additional diagnostic work-up. Four patients underwent work-up by additional radiologic imaging. Three patients required further invasive work-up or treatment. Three patients were transferred to another hospital, no extended follow-up was performed. In three patients, there was no documentation of follow-up. Five patients deceased before diagnostic work-up of the incidental finding could start. CONCLUSION: Total-body CT scanning as part of the evaluation of trauma patients leads to a substantial amount of incidental findings. Documentation of incidental findings and their clinical consequences was incomplete. Therefore, the findings of this study have prompted us to add an item to our electronic trauma room report that obliges residents to report whether or not incidental findings are found during trauma imaging.

Radiation exposure before and after the introductionof a dedicated total-body CT protocolin multitrauma patients.

Total-body CT (TBCT) scanning in trauma patients is being increasingly used in trauma assessment. One of the major disadvantages of CT scanning is the amount of radiation exposure involved. The aim of this study was to assess the number of radiological investigations and their associated radiation exposure in multitrauma patients before and after the introduction of a total-body CT protocol as a primary diagnostic tool. The Trauma Registry was used to identify trauma patients admitted to our Level 1 trauma centre in 2008 (pre-TBCT protocol) and 2010 (post-TBCT protocol). Consecutive patients with an Injury Severity Score of ≥16 were included. Patients aged 16 or under, referrals from other hospitals and patients with specific low-energy injury mechanisms were excluded. Subsequent effective doses were estimated from literature and from dose calculations. Three hundred one patients were included, 150 patients pre- and 151 post-introduction of the TBCT protocol. Demographics were comparable. In 2008, 20 % of severely injured patients underwent total-body CT scan, compared with 46 % of the patients in 2010. Trauma room radiation doses for conventional radiographs were significantly higher in 2008, while doses for CT scans were significantly lower. The total effective dose of trauma room radiological investigations was 16 milliSieverts (mSv) in 2008 vs. 24 mSv in 2010 (P = 0.223). The overall effective dose during the total hospital admission was not significantly different between 2008 and 2010 (20 vs. 24 mSv, P = 0.509).In conlusion, after the introduction of a dedicated TBCT protocol, the TBCT rate was more than doubled. Although this increased the CT-induced trauma room radiation dose, the overall radiation dose throughout hospital admission was comparable between patients in 2008 and 2010.

Cost-effectiveness of trauma CT in the trauma room versus the radiology department: the REACT trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of trauma room CT compared with CT performed at the radiology department. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, adult patients requiring evaluation in a level 1 trauma centre were included. In the intervention hospital the CT system was located within the trauma room and in the control hospital within the radiology department. Direct and indirect medical costs of the institutionalised stay and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,124 patients were randomised with comparable demographic characteristics. Mean number of non-institutionalised days alive was 322.5 in the intervention group (95 % CI 314-331) and 320.7 in the control group (95 % CI 312.1-329.2). Mean costs of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures per hospital inpatient day were 554 for the intervention group and 468 for the control group. Total mean costs in the intervention group were 16,002 (95 % CI 13,075-18,929) and 16,635 (95 % CI 13,528-19,743) for the control group (P = 0.77). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that in trauma patients the setting with a CT system located in the trauma room did not provide any advantages or disadvantages from a health economics perspective over a CT system located in the radiology department.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of immediate total-body computed tomography compared with selective radiological imaging of injured patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to assess the value of immediate total-body computed tomography (CT) during the primary survey of injured patients compared with conventional radiographic imaging supplemented with selective CT. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Reports were eligible if they contained original data comparing immediate total-body CT with conventional imaging supplemented with selective CT in injured patients. The main outcomes of interest were overall mortality and time in the emergency room (ER). RESULTS: Four studies were included describing a total of 5470 patients; one study provided 4621 patients (84.5 per cent). All four studies were non-randomized cohort studies with retrospective data collection. Mortality was reported in three studies. Absolute mortality rates differed substantially between studies, but within studies mortality rates were comparable between immediate total-body CT and conventional imaging strategies (pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.79 to 1.05). Time in the ER was described in three studies, and in two was significantly shorter in patients who underwent immediate total-body CT: 70 versus 104 min (P = 0.025) and 47 versus 82 min (P < 0.001) respectively. CONCLUSION: This review showed differences in time in the ER in favour of immediate total-body CT during the primary trauma survey compared with conventional radiographic imaging supplemented with selective CT. There were no differences in mortality. The substantial reduction in time in the ER is a promising feature of immediate total-body CT but well designed and larger randomized studies are needed to see how this will translate into clinical outcomes.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of computed tomography in the trauma room versus the radiology department on injury outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) of injured patients in the radiology department requires potentially dangerous and time-consuming patient transports and transfers. It was hypothesized that CT in the trauma room would improve patient outcome and workflow. METHODS: A randomized trial compared the effect of locating a CT scanner in the trauma room versus the radiology department in two Dutch trauma hospitals. Injured patients aged at least 16 years were assigned randomly to one of these hospitals at the time of transport. The primary outcome measure was the number of non-institutionalized days within the first year after randomization. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with multiple trauma or severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). RESULTS: Some 1124 patients were included, of whom 1045 were available for analysis. The median number of non-institutionalized days was 360 days in the intervention group versus 362 days for the control group (P = 0.068). The time from arrival to the first CT imaging was 13 min shorter in the intervention group (36 versus 49 min; P < 0.001). Patient transfers and transports were reduced by more than half in the intervention group. For both multiple trauma (265 patients) and TBI (121) subgroups, differences in mortality and out-of-hospital days favoured the intervention group, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: A CT scanner located in the trauma room reduces the time to acquire CT images and improves workflow, but does not lead to substantial improvements in clinical outcomes in a general trauma population. Observed beneficial effects on outcomes in patients with multiple trauma or severe TBI were not statistically significant. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55332315 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Missed injuries during the initial assessment in a cohort of 1124 level-1 trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the presence of diagnostic guidelines for the initial evaluation in trauma, the reported incidence of missed injuries is considerable. The aim of this study was to assess the missed injuries in a large cohort of trauma patients originating from two European Level-1 trauma centres. METHODS: We analysed the 1124 patients included in the randomised REACT trial. Missed injuries were defined as injuries not diagnosed or suspected during initial clinical and radiological evaluation in the trauma room. We assessed the frequency, type, consequences and the phase in which the missed injuries were diagnosed and used univariate analysis to identify potential contributing factors. RESULTS: Eight hundred and three patients were male, median age was 38 years and 1079 patients sustained blunt trauma. Overall, 122 injuries were missed in 92 patients (8.2%). Most injuries concerned the extremities. Sixteen injuries had an AIS grade of ≥ 3. Patients with missed injuries had significantly higher injury severity scores (ISSs) (median of 15 versus 5, p<0.001). Factors associated with missed injuries were severe traumatic brain injury (GCS ≤ 8) and multitrauma (ISS ≥ 16). Seventy-two missed injuries remained undetected during tertiary survey (59%). In total, 31 operations were required for 26 initially missed injuries. CONCLUSION: Despite guidelines to avoid missed injuries, this problem is hard to prevent, especially in the severely injured. The present study showed that the rate of missed injuries was comparable with the literature and their consequences not severe. A high index of suspicion remains warranted, especially in multitrauma patients.

Preventability of trauma deaths in a Dutch Level-1 trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring the quality of trauma care is frequently done by analysing the preventability of trauma deaths and errors during trauma care. In the Academic Medical Center trauma deaths are discussed during a monthly Morbidity and Mortality meeting. In this study an external multidisciplinary panel assessed the trauma deaths and errors in management of a Dutch Level-1 trauma centre for (potential) preventability. METHODS: All patients who died during or after presentation in the trauma resuscitation room in a 2-year period were eligible for review. All information on trauma evaluation and management was summarised by an independent research fellow. An external multidisciplinary panel individually evaluated the cases for preventability of death. Potential errors or mismanagements during the admission were classified for type, phase and domain. Overall agreement on (potential) preventability was compared between the external panel and the internal M&M consensus. RESULTS: Of the 62 evaluated trauma deaths one was judged as preventable and 17 were judged as potentially preventable by the review panel. Overall agreement on preventability between the review panel and the internal consensus was moderate (Kappa 0.51). The external panel judged one death as preventable compared with three from the internal consensus. The interobserver agreement between the external panel members was also moderate (Kappa 0.43). The panel judged 31 errors to have occurred in the (potential) preventable death group and 23 errors in the non-preventable death group. Such errors included choice or sequence of diagnostics, rewarming of hypothermic patients, and correction of coagulopathies. CONCLUSIONS: The preventable death rate in the present study was comparable to data in the available literature. Compared to internal review, the external, multidisciplinary review did not find a higher preventable death rate, although it provided several insights to optimise trauma care.

Are routine repeat chest x-rays before leaving the trauma room useful?

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines advocate multiple chest x-rays during primary resuscitation of trauma patients. Some local hospital protocols include a repeat x-ray before leaving the trauma resuscitation room (TR). The purpose of this study was to determine the value of routine repeat x-rays. METHODS: One-year data of all radiological imaging in the TR were prospectively collected for all patients presenting to the TR of the hospital. The x-rays were counted and assessed and the findings were classified as either 'new injury detected', 'presence of intervention devices' or 'deterioration of previously detected injury'. RESULTS: A total of 674 patients were included. More than 75% had two x-rays. Eight (2.1%) new injuries without clinical relevance were found on the repeat x-ray after an initial normal x-ray. 61 patients (9%) had a repeat x-ray to verify the effect of an intervention or position of devices. In 28 patients (22%) with two abnormal x-rays, newly diagnosed injuries (n=9) or deterioration of known injuries (n=19) were found. In 411 patients (81%) the results of the repeat x-ray had no clinical consequences. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that routine repeat chest x-rays can be omitted in trauma patients whose initial chest x-ray is normal.

Diagnostic imaging of cervical spine injuries following blunt trauma: a review of the literature and practical guideline.

Patients with a (potential) cervical spine injury can be subdivided into low-risk and high-risk patients. With a detailed history and physical examination the cervical spine of patients in the "low-risk" group can be "cleared" without further radiographic examinations. X-ray imaging (3-view series) is currently the primary choice of imaging for patients in the "low-risk" group with a suspected cervical spine injury after blunt trauma. For patients in the "high-risk"group because of its higher sensitivity a computed tomography scan is primarily advised or, alternatively, the cervical spine is immobilised until the patient can be reliably questioned and examined again. For the imaging of traumatic soft tissue injuries of the cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging is the technique of choice.

The value of postmortem computed tomography as an alternative for autopsy in trauma victims: a systematic review.

The aim of this study was to assess the role of postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) as an alternative for autopsy in determining the cause of death and the identification of specific injuries in trauma victims. A systematic review was performed by searching the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Articles were eligible if they reported both PMCT as well as autopsy findings and included more than one trauma victim. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the articles. The outcomes were described in terms of the percentage agreement on causes of death and amount of injuries detected. The data extraction and analysis were performed together. Fifteen studies were included describing 244 victims. The median sample size was 13 (range 5-52). The percentage agreement on the cause of death between PMCT and autopsy varied between 46 and 100%. The overall amount of injuries detected on CT ranged from 53 to 100% compared with autopsy. Several studies suggested that PMCT was capable of identifying injuries not detected during normal autopsy. This systematic review provides inconsistent evidence as to whether PMCT is a reliable alternative for autopsy in trauma victims. PMCT has promising features in postmortem examination suggesting PMCT is a good alternative for a refused autopsy or a good adjunct to autopsy because it detects extra injuries overseen during autopsies. To examine the value of PMCT in trauma victims there is a need for well-designed and larger prospective studies.