Tag Archives: EAST 2010

EAST Practice Guideline – Geriatric Trauma (2010 Update)

The EAST Practice Management Guideline on management of geriatric trauma was updated early this year. This post gives the details of the proposed changes. Click here to open a copy of the existing PMG for comparison.

Prehospital Triage

  • Level II – Injured patients with advanced age (>=65) and pre-existing medical conditions (PECs) should lower the threshold for field triage directly to a designated/verified trauma center.

Triage Issues

  • Level II – With the exception of patients who are moribund on arrival, an initial aggressive approach should be pursued with the elderly patient.
  • Level III – Patients 70 years of age or greater should receive care under the structure of the highest level of trauma activation and receive liberal application of invasive monitoring.
  • Level III – Elderly patients with at least one body system with an AIS >= 3 should be treated in designated trauma centers, preferably in ICUs staffed by surgeon-intensivists.


  • Level III – In patients 65 years of age or older with a GCS < 8, if substantial improvement in GCS is not realized within 72 hours of injury, consideration should be given to limiting further aggressive therapeutic interventions.

Head injury and anticoagulation

  • Level III – All patients who receive daily therapeutic anticoagulation should have appropriate assessment of their coagulation profile as soon as possible after admission. Those with suspected head injury should be evaluated with head CT as soon as possible after admission. Patient receiving warfarin with post-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage should receive initiation of therapy to correct their INR to normal range within 2 hours of admission.

Base deficit for triage

  • Level III – Base deficit measurements may provide useful information in determining status of initial resuscitation and risk of mortality for geriatric patients. ICU admission should be considered for patients >=65 with an initial base deficit >= -6.

Deleted guidelines – the following have been recommended for deletion from the PMG.

  • Attempts should be made to optimize cardiac index > 4L/min/M2 and/or oxygen consumption index of 170 cc/min/M2.
  • Complications negatively impact survival. Specific therapies to reduce complications should lead to optimal outcomes.
  • Admission trauma score < 7 is associated with 100% mortality and aggressive therapeutic interventions should be limited. 
  • Admission respiratory rate < 10 is associated with 100% mortality and aggressive therapeutic interventions should be limited. 

Performance Improvement for FAST

FAST is an integral component of major trauma evaluation. Unfortunately, although lots of people do them, quality control is not very consistent.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania studied how the use of a standard checklist and it’s impact on exam quality. Detection of fluid in any of the standard 4 FAST locations was recorded for every exam performed. No attempts were made to grade the amount of fluid seen. The exam was recorded in video format. 

Reviewers credentialed in FAST later reviewed the study videos in a blinded fashion using a checklist. They were also not aware of any CT or OR findings. The checklist contained grading for quality (poor, fair, good), result (positive, negative, unclear), and initial interpretation (positive, negative) for each of the 4 areas scanned. The study was also graded for its educational value. 

A total of 247 studies were reviewed. All study results were compared with CT (240) or OR (7) results. There 235 true negatives, 6 true positives, 4 false positives and 2 false negatives. Sensitivity was 75%, specificity was 98%, and accuracy was 98%.

Overall, 9% of exams were of good quality, 65% were fair, and 26% were poor. Despite this lack of good quality exams, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy adhered to the usual literature standards. The overall quality in both true and false exams were similar. 

Bottom line: This study reveals that we are doing an “okay” job with FAST exams in trauma patients. However, it also shows that there is room for improvement, and that FAST evaluation should be a part of the Performance Improvement program of any trauma centers that use FAST.

Reference: Performance Improvement for FAST Exam. University of Pennsylvania. Presented at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma meeting, Poster #24, January 2010.

Syncope Workup in Trauma Patients

Syncope accounts for 1-2% of all ED visits, and is a factor in some patients with blunt trauma, especially the elderly. If syncope is suspected, a “syncope workup” is frequently ordered. Just what this consists of is poorly defined. Even less understood is how useful the syncope workup really is.

Researchers at Yale retrospectively looked at their experience doing syncope workups in trauma patients. They were interested in seeing what was typically ordered, if it was clinically useful, and if it impacted length of stay. 

A total of 14% of trauma patients had syncope as a possible contributor to their injury. The investigators found that the following tests were typically ordered in these patients:

  • Carotid ultrasound (96%)
  • 2D Echo (96%)
  • Cardiac enzymes (81%)
  • Cardiology consult (23%)
  • Neurology consult (11%)
  • EEG (7%)
  • MRI (6%)

Most of this testing was normal. About 3% of cardiac enzymes were abnormal, as were 5% of carotid imaging and 4% of echocardiograms. 

Important! Of the patients who underwent an intervention after workup, 69% could have been identified based on history, physical exam, or EKG and did not depend on any of the other diagnostic tests.

Conclusion: Syncope workup is not needed routinely in trauma patients with syncope as a contributing factor. Need for intervention can usually be determined by history, exam and EKG performed in the ED. In this study, $216,000 in excess costs would have been saved!

Reference: Routine / protocol evaluation of trauma patients with suspected syncope is unnecessary. Davis, et al, Yale University. Presented at the 23rd Annual Scientific Assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, January 2010.

How To Predict the Need for Chest Tube in Occult Pneumothorax

Occult pneumothorax occurs somewhere between 2% and 12% in all blunt trauma patients. Many of these pneumothoraces never progress and thus never need treatment. Is there a way that we can identify ones that are likely to get worse?

A retrospective study of 283 blunt trauma patients with occult pneumothorax was presented at the EAST Annual Scientific Assembly last January. A total of 98 of these patients underwent chest tube insertion within 7 days, and 185 patients were successfully observed.

The authors noted an inverse relationship between age and successful conservative management. Patients with more serious injuries failed expectant management more frequently. Finally, patients with more rib fractures also tended to fail.

The authors estimated the risk of failure of expectant management based on these critieria and found:

  • Age > 35 – 36%
  • ISS > 24 – 20%
  • Rib fractures >= 4 – 53%

The risk with having none of these was 10%, and the risk with all was 75%! 

The time interval for placement was also interesting. 80% of the failures requiring a chest tube occurred within 24 hours, with most occurring in the first 2 hours. The authors also found that 40% of patients who were placed on a ventilator failed.

Obviously, this is a small retrospective study and the exact criteria for placing a chest tube were not specified. Nevertheless, it provides a simple tool that allows us to keep an eye on a subset of patients who are likely to fail observation of occult pneumothorax.

Reference: Factors Predicting Failed Observation of Occult Pneumothoraces in Blunt Trauma. Selander, Med Univ of South Carolina. EAST 2010 Annual Scientific Assembly.

Cervical Spine Clearance in Obtunded Patients

Cervical spine clearance in obtunded trauma patients has always been controversial. Most physicians believe that evaluation of bones and ligaments is required, although there is a minority that say that the spine can be cleared purely by radiographs. This would greatly simplify the process and decrease costs.

A prospective study was presented at EAST in January that evaluated the use of CT alone to clear the c-spine in these patients. It was presented by Claridge et al from MetroHealth in Cleveland, and is an expansion of an earlier prospective they performed. Based on the original study, the protocol was revised and the results of this re-study was presented.

The study involved 197 patients who were victims of blunt trauma, obtunded, and were noted to move all extremities. Short term mortality was 13% and long term mortality was 27%, which shows how badly injured this group was. The average ISS was 23 and the initial GCS was 8.

The following radiographic criteria were used to diagnose a significant c-spine injury:

  • Fracture line extending on 2 consecutive CT slices
  • Marked prevertebral soft tissue swelling or hematoma
  • Malalignment not explained by degenerative changes
  • Abnormal facets or posterior malalignment on sagittal reconstruction
  • Occipital condyle injury involving the craniocervical junction

Followup was performed either by re-examination after awakening (62%), followup by phone or chart review (12%), or MRI for persistent c-spine pain (2%). Thirteen percent died before re-evaluation, and 11% were lost to followup.

Using this protocol, the average hospital day of clearance decreased from 7.5 to 3.3, the incidence of decubitus ulcer from the collar decreased from 5% to 0.5%, and the average length of stay decreased from 23 to 14 days. All of these results were statistically significant.

The authors recognized that long term followup was lacking in this study and there was the potential for missed injury. Power calculations show that there are not enough patients enrolled to give a statistically sound result. The issue of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA) is always a possibility.

The bottom line: clearance based on radiographs alone is still not ready for prime time. Some injuries will ultimately be missed, and a fraction of those can cause devastating injury. The real question to be answered is “How many missed injuries is okay?” Until more and better work is done, some combination of radiographic and clinical techniques must be used.

Reference: A normal CT alone may clear the cervical spine in obtunded blunt trauma patients with gross extremity movement – a prospective evaluation of a revised protocol. Claridge et al, MetroHealth Medical Center. Presented at the 23rd Annual Scientific Assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, January 2010.