Tag Archives: screening

Complications, Imaging

Best Of EAST #7: Routine Screening vs Denver Criteria For BCVI

Leave a comment

Currently, blunt carotid and vertebral artery injury (BCVI) is diagnosed using CT angiography of the great vessels and neck. This study is typically ordered when there is some degree of clinical suspicion based on the application of an established screening system. There are currently two such systems in use, Denver and Memphis.

I dedicated a week to BCVI earlier in the year. If you’d like to read the series, click here.

Both screening systems have been updated over the years. There is now a modified Memphis and an expanded Denver system. The reason for the modifications is simple: some patients were not flagged as at risk by the original versions of the systems. Does this mean we should screen more, or even screen everybody?

To answer this question, it’s important to have an idea of the number of patients who actually sustain the injury. This means having a liberal screening policy in place in the first place. The trauma group at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis liberalized their criteria in 2012 and first published their experience in 2015. In this abstract, they examined their experience in screening all high-energy patients and reviewing how many patients would have been screened using the expanded Denver criteria.

Here are the factoids:

  • This is a single-center, retrospective study carried out over 5.5 years
  • A total of about 17,000 blunt trauma patients were seen, and about 30% underwent CTA neck for BCVI screening
  • About 1% of total patients screened were found to have BCVI, which was about 3% of those who underwent CTA
  • Sixteen percent of patients who actually had BCVI did NOT meet any of the expanded Denver criteria
  • Ten percent of patients with grades III-V injury did not meet any of the criteria

The authors concluded that using the expanded Denver criteria alone will result in missed injuries and that liberalized screen should be considered to decrease risk.

Bottom line: Once again, this is a paper that conforms to my own bias and experience, so I have to work to be critical of it. We have seen delayed diagnoses of this injury at our center using the standard criteria. For that reason, we recently implemented a guideline to add CTA neck on any patient with a mechanism sufficient to warrant CTA chest (we are not automatic pan-scanners).

This is a straightforward descriptive study at a center that has had a liberal BCVI screening guideline for nearly a decade. The only opportunity for bias lies in the specifics of the screening criteria. In St. Vincent’s case, it is simple: any patient with a mechanism sufficient to require CT cervical spine or chest received CTA neck as well.

I would argue that this might be a bit too liberal. There are many elderly patients who fall that require cervical spine CT, but the mechanism should be insufficient to sustain a BCVI. It can be an add-on study if fracture patterns are seen that fall within the Denver or Memphis criteria.

Here are my questions for the authors and presenter:

  • Why choose the Denver criteria? Why not look at Memphis, too? I’m sure you will find similar issues.
  • Did you analyze your elderly falls patients who got their CTA based on your cervical CT criterion? It seems like this could result in substantial overtriage. Did you actually detect any BCVI in this group if they didn’t have one of the classic fracture patterns?

This is an important abstract, and I’m looking forward to hearing all the specifics! It looks like it may be time to seriously consider the energy of the mechanism, if not ditch the criteria altogether.

Reference: ROUTINE CT SCREENING FOR BLUNT CEREBROVASCULAR INJURY IDENTIFIES INJURIES MISSED BY CLINICAL RISK FACTORS. EAST 35th ASA, oral abstract #35.

Abstracts, Complications

Best Of AAST #8: Duplex Screening For DVT

Leave a comment

To screen on not to screen, that is the question. If you do more testing, you will find more cases. But does it make a difference clinically? Sounds like some of the questions coming up in our current discussion of the Coronavirus. But that’s what we really need to know.

The group at Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City performed a 2 ½ year randomized, prospective study of screening duplex ultrasound of the lower extremities vs no screening study. They used the Risk Assessment Profile (RAP) developed by Greenfield, first published in 2000. Any patient at moderate or higher risk for DVT (RAP score >5) was enrolled in the study. They were randomized into two groups: a screening group who received duplex scans on days 1, 3, 7, and then weekly, and a “no routine screening” group. All patients received chemoprophylaxis per the trauma service’s existing protocol.

The RAP score is a 17 factor scale that assigns a specific number of points based on underlying medical conditions, iatrogenic factors like central lines or transfusions, injury-related factors, and age.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 3,236 trauma patients were identified, and the 1,989 who were at moderate or higher risk for DVT were evenly randomized to screening vs no screening
  • There were no differences in age, sex, BMI, mechanism, ISS, or length of stay between the two groups
  • The incidence of DVT was 15% in the screened group vs 1.7% in the no screening group

The authors concluded that screening diagnoses more DVT, most of which is below the knee. And they also noted that screening identified DVT more often than clinical exam alone, but does not result in fewer PE or deaths. They suggest that more work needs to be done to identify exactly who benefits from duplex screening the most.

Here are my comments:

Finally, an easy to follow and well-designed study! But I think some of the results may be missing from the abstract. That section cuts off in the middle of some of the statistics, and there is no mention of the clot location or PE/mortality rates mentioned in the conclusion.

I also worry that a thousand patients in each group may not be enough. We are working with low incidence end points like PE and death, and this is an association study with many potential confounders/factors that may not have been recorded. I generally like to see the ability to detect a minimum of a 2x effect. So if the incidence of PE is 1.5%, I like to see the ability to detect a difference if the other group is 3%.

And speaking of study size. The RAP score was first described in 1997 and was a pilot study. They drew their conclusions from only 53 patients, and the only risk factor that they could show that was a statistically significant predictor of DVT was age. They concluded that surveillance of patients with RAP > 5 was warranted. This abstract builds upon this work, but is trying to say that maybe we don’t need to do duplex scans.

Here are my questions for the presenter and authors:

  • Is there some text missing from the end of the results section of the abstract? It seems to end unexpectedly, and some things are mentioned in the conclusions that are not in the results.
  • Why did you choose the RAP score? There are other risk assessment tools available out there. What is so special about RAP?
  • Is your sample size large enough to detect differences in incidence of PE or death? My back of the envelope calculations suggest at least 1,500 patients would be needed in each group.
  • How long did you follow patients to determine if they had PE or death? Until they were discharged? Later than that?  This makes a big difference in the eventual incidence of these outcomes.
  • Based on what you found, is there any value to treating asymptomatic proximal DVT? It sounds like you are saying that screening is not needed at all because PE and death are the same. Isn’t there value in treating proximal DVT if you find it?

This abstract certainly got me thinking! I am looking forward to the presentation and discussion of this abstract!

Reference: Head in the sand? The value of routine duplex ultrasound screening for venous thromboembolism in the trauma patient: a randomized Vanguard trial. AAST 2020, Oral Abstract #16.

General

AAST 2011: Predicting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) After Trauma

Leave a comment

Today is the last day of the annual AAST meeting, so I’ll wind up with one last abstract presented at this meeting.

PTSD can cause significant morbidity after trauma. Most centers manage this problem reactively, when the patient exhibits obvious symptoms in the hospital or after discharge. Wouldn’t it make more sense to screen for it routinely? Is there a way to figure out which patients are at higher risk?

The University of Pittsburgh prospectively screened 1,386 injured patients presenting to their followup clinic using the PTSD Checklist – Civilian (PCL-C) instrument. A score of>=35 has a sensitivity of 85% and was considered a positive result.

The authors found that more than 25% of their outpatient clinic patients met the threshold. The most common mechanism was assault, both blunt and penetrating. Younger age (<55), female gender and motor vehicle crash were also found to be predictors.

Bottom line: Consider routine PTSD screening in patients with the listed risk factors, just like we perform routine TBI screening in patients with head injuries. The PCL-C is self-administered and takes only about 5 minutes to complete. The most reliable way is to send it home with your patient, with instructions to complete it before they see you or their primary physician in the outpatient clinic.

Resources:

Reference: Predictors of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following civilian trauma: highest incidence and severity of symptoms after assault. AAST 2011 Annual Meeting, Paper 33.