Outcome of selective CT vs. pan-CT scan in elderly trauma patients: A retrospective cohort study in a level 1 trauma center.
Aged
Computed tomography
Length of stay
Wounds and injuries
Journal
Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi
ISSN: 1008-1275
Titre abrégé: Chin J Traumatol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 100886162
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
24
10
2020
revised:
20
12
2020
accepted:
15
02
2021
pubmed:
6
5
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
5
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are currently no clear guidelines for use of pan- or selective CT in elderly trauma patients and this subject matter remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of elderly trauma patients in a level 1 trauma centre who required a pan- or selective CT scan on admission. The Trauma Audit Research Network database was reviewed to identify eligible patients (≥65 years) over a one-year period, from January 2018 to January 2019. Patients' demographics, mechanism of injury, injury severity score, length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality and type of CT scans done were recorded. The inclusion criteria were elderly patients ≥65 years involved in acute trauma setting (less than one day between incident and emergency department presentation and blunt mechanism of injury). Exclusion criteria were patients <65 years, perforating mechanism of injury and patients with delayed presentation more than one day after the incident, and patients who have not got any CT scan at presentation. Statistical analyses were undertaken on SPSS (version 25.0; IBM, New York, USA). In total, 481 patients with the mean age of 80.8 years were evaluated (48.6% male). Among them 232 cases were multiple injuries while 249 were single system injuries. And 235 patients (48.8%) underwent pan-CT in whom 66.8% were multiple injuries; 246 (51.1%) did selective CT scan in whom 69.5% were single system injuries. In multiple injury patients, performing a pan-CT scan on presentation was associated with shorter LOS compared to those who had a selective CT, in which 76.4% patients spent < 21 days in the pan-CT group compared to 16.0% for those investigated by selective CT scan (p < 0.001); and 2.5% spent > 60 days in pan-CT group compared to 64% in selective CT group (p < 0.0001). Performing pan-CT was also associated with lower need to repeat CT (p < 0.01). In patients with a single system injury, no differences were found in LOS or the need to repeat CT if either pan-CT or selective CT were requested. We recommend doing pan-CT scan in all elderly patients with multiple system injuries as it decreases the LOS and the need for another CT during hospital stay. No difference in LOS or the need to repeat another CT if pan-CT or selective CT were requested initially in single system injuries. Although age and injury severity score are poor predictors for the need to do pan-CT, the mechanism of injury may be helpful.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33947622
pii: S1008-1275(21)00083-3
doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.04.010
pmc: PMC8563841
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
249-254Informations de copyright
Crown Copyright © 2021. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Nov;42(6):1958-65
pubmed: 20728648
Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):691-7
pubmed: 16814787
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Jul;20(7):1185-94
pubmed: 15940371
Emerg Med J. 2012 Aug;29(8):630-4
pubmed: 21785144
Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):735-8
pubmed: 15273333
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Mar;58(3):442-9
pubmed: 20163484
JAMA Surg. 2016 Sep 21;151(9):e161689
pubmed: 27409710
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Jul;19(7):821-7
pubmed: 22724382
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Mar;76(3):894-901
pubmed: 24553567
Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2017 Feb;102(1):20-23
pubmed: 27683824
BMJ. 2005 Dec 10;331(7529):1374
pubmed: 16299013
JAMA Surg. 2017 Feb 15;152(2):e164642
pubmed: 28030715
J Trauma. 2002 Sep;53(3):407-14
pubmed: 12352472
Injury. 2012 Sep;43(9):1580-5
pubmed: 21382620
J Trauma. 1990 Apr;30(4):410-4
pubmed: 2182895
Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;58(5):407-16.e15
pubmed: 21890237
Am J Emerg Med. 2008 Mar;26(3):296-303
pubmed: 18358940
J Trauma. 2007 Oct;63(4):757-63
pubmed: 18090002
J Trauma. 1986 Jul;26(7):585-92
pubmed: 3723633
Injury. 2015 Sep;46(9):1701-2
pubmed: 26296593
Emerg Med J. 2015 Dec;32(12):911-5
pubmed: 26598629
Arch Surg. 2006 May;141(5):468-73; discussion 473-5
pubmed: 16702518
Am J Surg. 2016 Oct;212(4):781-785
pubmed: 27038794
Lancet. 2002 May 18;359(9319):1761-7
pubmed: 12049882
J Trauma. 2009 Oct;67(4):779-87
pubmed: 19820586
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Oct;61(10):1806-7
pubmed: 24117290