All posts by TheTraumaPro

Thoughts On Traumatic Hematuria: Part 2

Yesterday, I discussed blood in the urine from a urethra. As I mentioned, there is typically not much from that particular injury. Today, I’ll dig into the three causes of real hematuria.

All of these tubes show gross hematuria except the one on the right.

  • Bladder injury. This can occur with either blunt or penetrating injury. The degree of hematuria is variable with stabs or gunshots, but tends to be much darker in blunt injury. This happens because the size of the bladder injury tends to be greater with blunt force. The bladder injury is not necessarily full-thickness with blunt trauma. It may just be some wall contusion and underlying mucosal injury. But frequently, with seat belt injury and/or A-P compression injuries to the pelvis (“open book”), the injury is full thickness.
    • Tip: If less than 50cc of very dark urine flow from the catheter upon insertion, it is likely that your patient has an intraperitoneal bladder rupture!
  • Ureteral injury. This injury is very rare. The most common mechanism is penetrating, but this structure is so small and deep that it seldom gets hit by naything. Patients with multiple lumbar transverse process fractures will occasionally have a small amount of hematuria, probably from a minor contusion. More often than not, the hematuria is microscopic, so we should never know about it.
  • Kidney injury. The most important fact regarding renal injury is that the degree of injury has no correlation with the amount of hematuria. The most devastating injury, a devascularized kidney, frequently has little if any gross hematuria. And conversely, a very minor contusion can produce very red urine.

So what about diagnosis? It’s easy! If you see gross hematuria, insert a foley catheter (if not already done) and order a CT of the abdomen/pelvis with contrast, as well as a CT cystogram. The latter must not be done using passive filling of the bladder with a clamped catheter. Contrast must be infused into the bladder under pressure to ensure a bladder injury can be identified.

CT scan is an excellent tool for defining injuries to kidney, ureter, and bladder, and will identify extravasation into specific places and allow grading. Specific management will be the topic of future posts.

Thoughts On Traumatic Hematuria: Part 1

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:

The August Trauma MedEd Newsletter Is Coming Soon: The Laws of Trauma

I’m going to send out the next edition of the Trauma MedEd newsletter early next week. In this one, I’ll be presenting and discussing some of the “Laws of Trauma” that I’ve observed over the years. I think you’ll find them interesting and amusing.

As always, this issue will go to all of my subscribers first. If you are not yet one of them, click this link to sign up and/or download back issues.

Unfortunately, non-subscribers will have to wait until I release the issue on this blog, about 10 days later. So sign up now!

When Can You Take A Hypotensive Patient To CT?

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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? Part 2

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.