Dataset Information

Predictive value of a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) result in patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To investigate if patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury and a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) examination have a more favorable prognosis than those with a true-positive FAST. METHODS:This study included 97 consecutive patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury (based on computed tomography [CT] and/or surgical findings) who underwent FAST. RESULTS:FAST was false-negative in 40 patients (41.2%) and true-positive in 57 patients (58.8%). Twenty-two patients (22.7%) had an unfavorable outcome (defined as the need for an interventional radiologic procedure, laparotomy, or death due to abdominal injury). Univariately, a false-negative FAST (odds ratio [OR] 0.24; p = 0.017) and a higher systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.97 per mmHg increase; p = 0.034) were significantly associated with a favorable outcome, whereas contrast extravasation on CT (OR, 7.17; p = 0.001) and shock index classification (OR, 1.89 for each higher class; p = 0.046) were significantly associated with an unfavorable outcome. Multivariately, only contrast extravasation on CT remained significantly associated with an unfavorable outcome (OR, 4.64; p = 0.016). When excluding contrast extravasation on CT from multivariate analysis, only a false-negative FAST result was predictive of a favorable outcome (OR, 0.28; p = 0.038). CONCLUSION:Trauma patients with confirmed abdominal injury and a false-negative FAST have a better outcome than those with a positive FAST. FAST may be valuable for risk stratification and prognostication in patients with a high suspicion of abdominal injury when CT has not been performed yet or when CT is not available.

SUBMITTER: Alramdan MHA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7511496 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictive value of a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) result in patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury.

Alramdan Mohammed H A MHA Yakar Derya D IJpma Frank F A FFA Kasalak Ömer Ö Kwee Thomas C TC

Insights into imaging 20200923 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate if patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury and a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) examination have a more favorable prognosis than those with a true-positive FAST.<h4>Methods</h4>This study included 97 consecutive patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury (based on computed tomography [CT] and/or surgical findings) who underwent FAST.<h4>Results</h4>FAST was false-negative in 40 patients (41.2%) and true-positive i ...[more]

PMID: 32965600

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 wide variation in the accuracy and reliability of the Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma (FAST) and the extended FAST (E-FAST) for children after blunt abdominal trauma reflects user expertise. FAST and E-FAST that are performed by experts tend to be more complete, better quality, and more often clinically valuable.ObjectiveTo develop definitions of a complete, high-quality, and accurate interpretation for the FAST and E-FAST in children with injury using an expert, consensus-based modified Delphi technique.Design, setting, and participantsThis consensus-based qualitative study was conducted between May 1 to June 30, 2021. It used a scoping review and iterative Delphi technique and involved 2 rounds of online surveys and a live webinar to achieve consensus among a 26-member panel. This panel consisted of international experts in pediatric emergency point-of-care ultrasonography.Main outcomes and measuresDefinitions of complete, high-quality, and accurate FAST and E-FAST studies for children after injury.ResultsOf the 29 invited pediatric FAST experts, 26 (15 men [58%]) agreed to participate in the panel. All 26 panelists completed the 2 rounds of surveys, and 24 (92%) participated in the live and asynchronous online discussions. Consensus was reached on FAST and E-FAST study definitions, and the panelists rated these 5 anatomic views as important and appropriate for a complete FAST: right upper-quadrant abdominal view, left upper-quadrant abdominal view, suprapubic views (transverse and sagittal), and subxiphoid cardiac view. For E-FAST, the same FAST anatomic views with the addition of the lung or pneumothorax view were deemed appropriate and important. In addition, the panelists rated a total of 32 landmarks as important for assessing completeness. Similarly, the panelists rated 14 statements on quality and 20 statements on accurate interpretation as appropriate.Conclusions and relevanceThis qualitative study generated definitions for complete FAST and E-FAST studies with high image quality and accurate interpretation in children with injury. These definitions are similar to those in adults with injury and may be used for future education, quality assurance, and research. Future research may focus on interpretation of trace volumes of abdominal free fluid and the use of serial FAST.

Project description:Background:Thoracoabdominal trauma presents a diagnostic challenge for the emergency physician. The introduction of bedside ultrasonography (USG) provides a screening tool to detect hemoperitoneum, hemothorax, pneumothorax and pericardial effusion in torso injuries. Aim:To evaluate the accuracy of extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (EFAST) for chest and abdominal injuries performed by first responders in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal. Methods:This was a prospective study including all trauma patients who obtained either an Injury Severity Score ?15?or direct trauma to the trunk in 1?year period in the emergency department (ED) of Dhulikhel Hospital-Kathmandu University Hospital. The results of the EFAST were then compared with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), radiology ultrasound (USG)/chest X-ray, or intraoperative findings when the EFAST was positive. The negative EFAST cases were observed for a minimum of 4?hours in the ED. Descriptive statistics and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated. Results:Out of 267 cases, 261 patients underwent an EFAST examination. The sensitivity and specificity were 94.8% and 99.5%, respectively. The negative predictive value was 98.53% whereas the positive predictive value was 98.21%. The overall accuracy was 99.4%. Conclusion:The results of this study suggest that EFAST examination performed by first-line healthcare providers is a useful method for assessment of thoracic and abdominal injuries. EFAST was found to have a high specificity (99.5%) and positive predictive value (98.21%) which indicates that it is an effective technique for detecting intra-abdominal or thoracic injuries. However, the effectiveness of EFAST is limited by its being operator dependent, and thereby human error. For negative EFAST cases, we recommend a monitoring period of at least 4?hours, serial fast scan, or further investigation through other methods such as a CECT. Level of evidence:Level I.

Project description:ObjectivesWe quantified the gaze fixation duration of resident and fellowship sonographers interpreting a prerecorded focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST). We hypothesized that all sonographers would fixate on each relevant anatomic relationship but that the duration of fixation would differ.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study collecting and analyzing the gaze fixations of a convenience sample of current resident and fellowship sonographers. All sonographers viewed a standardized FAST video, and their gaze fixations were recorded using a Tobii X3-120 eye-tracking bar. Gaze fixations over nine anatomic regions of interest (ROIs) were identified. These were assessed for normality and analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test at an alpha of 0.05 and Bonferroni correction p value of <0.0034. The chi-square test and Pearson's correlation were performed to assess statistical association.ResultsThe gaze fixation recordings of 24 resident and eight fellowship sonographers were suitable for analysis. Fourteen of the 24 resident sonographers viewed all ROIs in the FAST, whereas all eight fellowship sonographers viewed each of the nine relevant ROIs. Five ROIs were identified over which at least one resident sonographer did not have a gaze fixation. No statistically significant difference was identified between groups. Resident sonographers gaze fixated over the left upper quadrant (LUQ) splenorenal interface for a median (interquartile range) of 10.64 (9.73-11.60) seconds. The fellowship group viewed the same ROI for 8.43 (6.64-8.95) seconds (p < 0.003). All participants viewed this ROI. No other ROIs had a statistical difference.ConclusionFive ROIs were identified that were not visually interrogated by all resident sonographers. Only 14 of 24 resident sonographers visually interrogated every area in the FAST, whereas all fellowship sonographers interrogated every ROI. A statistically significant difference was found in gaze fixation duration between resident and fellowship sonographers in one ROI. Further study is required for gaze fixation assessment to become a tool for the interpretation component of point-of-care ultrasound.

Dataset Information

Predictive value of a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) result in patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury.

Publications

Predictive value of a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) result in patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets