Dataset Information

The Utility of Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma Enhanced Physical Examination in Children With Blunt Torso Trauma.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Computed 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Among 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%).

Conclusions

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Kornblith AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8502256 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveThe Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) has developed a clinical-decision instrument (CDI) to identify children at very low risk of intra-abdominal injury. However, the CDI has not been externally validated. We sought to vet the PECARN CDI with the Predictability Computability Stability (PCS) data science framework, potentially increasing its chance of a successful external validation.Materials & methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of two prospectively collected datasets: PECARN (12,044 children from 20 emergency departments) and an independent external validation dataset from the Pediatric Surgical Research Collaborative (PedSRC; 2,188 children from 14 emergency departments). We used PCS to reanalyze the original PECARN CDI along with new interpretable PCS CDIs developed using the PECARN dataset. External validation was then measured on the PedSRC dataset.ResultsThree predictor variables (abdominal wall trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale Score <14, and abdominal tenderness) were found to be stable. A CDI using only these three variables would achieve lower sensitivity than the original PECARN CDI with seven variables on internal PECARN validation but achieve the same performance on external PedSRC validation (sensitivity 96.8% and specificity 44%). Using only these variables, we developed a PCS CDI which had a lower sensitivity than the original PECARN CDI on internal PECARN validation but performed the same on external PedSRC validation (sensitivity 96.8% and specificity 44%).ConclusionThe PCS data science framework vetted the PECARN CDI and its constituent predictor variables prior to external validation. We found that the 3 stable predictor variables represented all of the PECARN CDI's predictive performance on independent external validation. The PCS framework offers a less resource-intensive method than prospective validation to vet CDIs before external validation. We also found that the PECARN CDI will generalize well to new populations and should be prospectively externally validated. The PCS framework offers a potential strategy to increase the chance of a successful (costly) prospective validation.

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.