All posts by The Trauma Pro

Tips

Thoughts On Traumatic Hematuria: Part 1

August 7, 2017 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

I’ve seen a number of patients recently with bloody urine, and that is prompting me to provide some (written) clarity to others who need to manage this clinical problem. I’ll try to keep it organized!

There are two kinds of hematuria in trauma: blood that you can see with the naked eye, and…

Okay, so there’s only one. Trauma professionals do not care about microscopic hematuria. It does not change clinical management. Sure, your patient might have a renal contusion, but you won’t do anything about that. Or, he/she might have an infarcting kidney. And you can’t do anything about that. If you order a urinalysis, you might see a few RBCs. Don’t let this lead you down the path of looking for a source. You’ll end up ordering lots of tests and additional imaging, and generally will have nothing to show for it at the end. It’s not your job to spend good money on the very rare chance of finding something clinically significant.

Both of these specimens have blood in them. You can’t see it on the left, so don’t go looking for it with a microscope.

There are four sources of blood in the urine.

1. The first source does not generally cause hematuria, but can occasionally cause a few visible wisps of blood. That source is a urethral injury. The textbook teaching, and it’s good advice, is to look at the urethral meatus in your trauma patient, especially if you are contemplating insertion of a urinary catheter. If you see a few drops of blood, pause to consider. Sometimes, the blood is no longer visible, but might be present as a few well-placed drops on the patient’s underwear. So have a look at that, too, especially in patients with high risk injuries such as A-P compression pelvic fractures (think, lots of ramus fractures or pubic diastasis).

If you didn’t notice it and inserted the catheter anyway, you might see a few wisps of blood in the tubing as you place it. More often than not, this is just run of the mill irritation of the mucosa by the catheter, but always keep the possibility of an injury in mind.

Tomorrow, I’ll discuss the remaining three sources, and what to do about them.

Related posts:

Imaging

When Can You Take A Hypotensive Patient To CT?

August 1, 2017 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

The last two posts, I went on a rant about taking hypotensive patients to CT. The bottom line is that this is a generally bad idea, even if bad papers say it’s okay. However, we all know that there are no absolutes, especially in trauma.

So yes, there are two cases where one could justify taking a hypotensive patient to CT scan. Here they are:

You believe that your patient has a catastrophic brain injury which is responsible for the hypotension. You would like CT confirmation so you can begin to withdraw support and terminate any other interventions.
Your patient has sustained a cervical spinal cord injury and has neurogenic shock. You have started fluid resuscitation and are considering a pressor to normalize blood pressure, but would like to continue your diagnostic routine.

But before you can even consider leaving your resuscitation room, you must ensure that there is no other source of hypotension. This means getting chest and pelvic xrays to look for hemothorax or fractures. It means getting a good FAST exam to make sure there is no significant hemoperitoneum. It also means making sure that any fractures are properly splinted and there is no uncontrolled external bleeding.

You can only go to CT scan once all of these other potential bleeding sources have been ruled out. If in doubt, you must proceed to OR to either stop the bleeding or prove that it does not exist.

Are there any other reasons to take one of these patients to CT that you can think of? If so, leave comments or tweet!

Related post:

Can I take a hypotensive patient to CT?

Imaging

Can I Take A Hypotensive Patient to CT? Part 2

July 31, 2017 The Trauma Pro 2 Comments

In my last post, I commented on a paper that tried to claim that there is no reason not to take a patient to CT if they are hypotensive. It had issues, as you saw. Today, I want to share another paper from a few years ago that tried to do the same. Again, read the abstract!

I’ve said it before: hypotension and CT scanners don’t play together well. For years I’ve cautioned against this, having seen a number of patients crash and burn in this area early in my career. But it’s a common error, and may jeopardize your patient’s safety. A paper that is now in press looked at this practice in a trauma hospital in Taiwan.

Patients who had blunt abdominal trauma were retrospectively reviewed. Those who remained hypotensive (SBP<90) after 2L of crystalloid were scruitnized. The CT scanner was described as being located in the same area as the ED resuscitation rooms. Furthermore, several physicians and nurses were present during scans, and a full selection of resuscitation equipment was available in the scan area.

Here are the factoids:

909 patients were entered into the study
Only 91 patients remained hypotensive after initial resuscitation, and only 58 of these were scanned before definitive management
As expected, patients who were hypotensive after initial resuscitation had more serious injuries (ISS 22 vs 12), required more blood transfusions (938 vs 202 cc), and had a higher mortality (10% vs 1%).
There were no significant differences in comparing hypotensive patients who went to CT scan vs those who did not if they underwent some sort of hemostatic procedure (laparotomy, angioembolization)
In the hypotensive patients, time to OR in the CT scan group was 58 minutes vs 62 minutes for those who skipped the scan.
In the same patients, time to angio in the CT scan group was 147 minutes vs 140 minutes without a scan first.

The authors conclude that “hypotension does not always make performing a CT scan unfeasible.” (weak!)

Read this paper closely and don’t get fooled! It is very retrospective and very small. And if you look at the times carefully, you will see some funny business. How can time to OR or angio be virtually identical regardless of whether CT is used? Is it the world’s closest, fastest scanner? Probably not.

The authors showed that hypotensive patients have a ten-fold increase in mortality. They also recognized that definitive control of hemorrhage is the key to saving the patients. Unfortunately, there are factors in this retrospective study, such as various biases and some undocumented factors that make their two patient groups look artificially alike. This gives the appearance that the CT scan makes no difference.

In reality, the fact that there is no difference in times ensures that there is no clinical difference in outcome. To really answer this question, this kind of study must be done prospectively, and must have an adequate population size.

Bottom line: Don’t even consider going to CT with hypotensive patients. Even if you have the fastest, closest scanner in the world. Shock time still kills, and most CT scan rooms are very poor resuscitation rooms. If your patient is unstable in the ED, do your ABCs, get a quick exam, then transport to the area where you can get control of the bleeding. This will nearly always be your OR.

Reference: Hypotension does not always make computed tomography scans unfeasible in the management of blunt trauma patients. Injury, 46(1):29-34, 2015.

Philosophy, Resuscitation

Don’t Just Read The Abstract: CT Scanning The Unstable Patient

July 28, 2017 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

I’ve said it many times before: “don’t just read the abstract.” They can be misleading, and doing so makes it impossible to see the shortcomings of the research model and the veracity of the conclusions. Yet good trauma professionals do it all the time.

So I’ve selected a recent poster child to demonstrate this tenet. Let’s go over the study details:

This paper is a retrospective, registry review from Japan. The authors point out that one of the long-held rules is to avoid scanning unstable trauma patients in the “tunnel of death.” The authors cite a prior study that did not show an increase in mortality from this practice. So they decided to repeat/confirm it using 11 years of national registry data.

They included all patients who arrived at the trauma center with blood pressure < 90. Interestingly, they excluded patients in frank or near arrest. And finally, patients with critical data points missing were excluded. They used a regression method to control for covariates such as age, ISS, and vitals upon arrival.

Here are the factoids:

Out of nearly 200,000 patients, about 7,000 were initially eligible. About 1,000 were excluded by the criteria above or because they were treated at a low volume facility. Only 5,809 were included in the study and another 500 were excluded because of missing covariates.
The authors found that there were significantly fewer deaths in the group of unstable patients taken to CT (20 fewer per 100 patients) (!!!?)
However, when corrected for confounders, this significant difference went away completely
But the authors conclusion in the abstract was: “We suggest physicians should consider CT as one of the diagnostic options even when patients are unstable.”

Bottom line: What? The study went from showing that taking an unstable patient to CT was amazing for decreasing mortality, to no different after applying more statistical methods. And since there was no difference, why not just go?

Here’s why. In-hospital and 24 hour mortality are not good indicators of anything because there are so many patient and hospital factors involved. And because it was a registry study, there was no way of knowing if the patient was hypotensive at the time they were taken to CT. They could have had a low blood pressure and responded well to resuscitation. Or they could have been normotensive on arrival and became hypotensive before CT scan. There is no way to cleanly identify the correct study group without a prospective study, or a very painstaking retrospective one.

One of the most important aspects of this study is some background info that is not stated in the paper. Surgeon involvement in initial resuscitation in Japan is not nearly as integrated as it is in the US. So if the resuscitating physicians can’t do anything about the bleeding in the ED, why not just scan them while awaiting arrival of the surgeon? If the patient crashes, was it due to the scan, or a delay in getting to the OR?

So don’t just read the abstract. If it seems to be too good to be true, it is. Or at least self-serving. Read the nitty gritty details and decide for yourself!

Next week: more on unstable patients and the CT scanner

Reference: Computed tomography during initial management and mortality among hemodynamically unstable blunt trauma patients: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Scand J Trauma 25(1):74, 2017.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog