Dataset Information

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a clinical decision rule versus usual care to risk stratify children for intraabdominal injury after blunt torso trauma.

ABSTRACT: Recently a clinical decision rule (CDR) to identify children at very low risk for intraabdominal injury needing acute intervention (IAI) following blunt torso trauma was developed. Potential benefits of a CDR include more appropriate abdominal computed tomography (CT) use and decreased hospital costs. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of implementing the CDR compared to usual care for the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma. The hypothesis was that compared to usual care, implementation of the CDR would result in lower CT use and hospital costs.A cost-effectiveness decision analytic model was constructed comparing the costs and outcomes of implementation of the CDR to usual care in the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma. Probabilities from a multicenter cohort study of children with blunt torso trauma were derived; estimated costs were based on those at the study coordinating site. Outcome measures included missed IAI, number of abdominal CT scans, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses varying imputed probabilities, costs, and scenarios were conducted.Using a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 children with blunt torso trauma, the base case model projected that the implementation of the CDR would result in 0.50 additional missed IAIs, a total cost savings of $54,527, and 104 fewer abdominal CT scans compared to usual care. The usual care strategy would cost $108,110 to prevent missing one additional IAI. Findings were robust under multiple sensitivity analyses.Compared to usual care, implementation of the CDR in the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma would reduce hospital costs and abdominal CT imaging, with a slight increase in the risk of missed intraabdominal IAI.

SUBMITTER: Nishijima DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3930144 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a clinical decision rule versus usual care to risk stratify children for intraabdominal injury after blunt torso trauma.

Nishijima Daniel K DK Yang Zhuo Z Clark John A JA Kuppermann Nathan N Holmes James F JF Melnikow Joy J

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20131101 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>Recently a clinical decision rule (CDR) to identify children at very low risk for intraabdominal injury needing acute intervention (IAI) following blunt torso trauma was developed. Potential benefits of a CDR include more appropriate abdominal computed tomography (CT) use and decreased hospital costs. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of implementing the CDR compared to usual care for the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma. The hypot ...[more]

PMID: 24238315

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesComputed tomography (CT), the reference standard for diagnosis of intraabdominal injury (IAI), carries risk including ionizing radiation. CT-sparing clinical decision rules for children have relied heavily on physical examination, but they did not include focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST), which has emerged into widespread use during the past decade. We sought to determine the independent associations of physical examination, laboratory studies, and FAST with identification of IAI in children and to compare the test characteristics of these diagnostic variables. We hypothesized that FAST may add incremental utility to a physical examination alone to more accurately identify children who could forgo CT scan.MethodsWe reviewed a large trauma database of all children with blunt torso trauma presenting to a freestanding pediatric emergency department during a 20-month period. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of FAST, physical examination, and selected laboratory data with IAI in children, and we compared the test characteristics of these variables.ResultsAmong 354 children, 50 (14%) had IAI. Positive FAST (odds ratio [OR] = 14.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.5 to 30.8) and positive physical examination (OR = 15.2, 95% CI = 7.7 to 31.7) were identified as independent predictors for IAI. Physical examination and FAST each had sensitivities of 74% (95% CI = 60% to 85%). Combining FAST and physical examination as FAST-enhanced physical examination (exFAST) improved sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) over either test alone (sensitivity = 88%, 95% CI = 76% to 96%) and NPV of 97.3% (95% CI = 94.5% to 98.7%).ConclusionsIn children, FAST and physical examinations each predicted the identification of IAI. However, the combination of the two (exFAST) had greater sensitivity and NPV than either physical examination or FAST alone. This supports the use of exFAST in refining clinical predication rules in children with blunt torso trauma.

Project description:ImportanceThe utility of the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination in children is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine if the FAST examination during initial evaluation of injured children improves clinical care.Design, setting, and participantsA 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.InterventionsPatients 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 measuresCoprimary outcomes were rate of abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans in the ED, missed intra-abdominal injuries, ED length of stay, and hospital charges.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01540318.

Dataset Information

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a clinical decision rule versus usual care to risk stratify children for intraabdominal injury after blunt torso trauma.

Publications

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a clinical decision rule versus usual care to risk stratify children for intraabdominal injury after blunt torso trauma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets