Elsevier

Injury

Volume 41, Issue 5, May 2010, Pages 479-483
Injury

Is the FAST exam reliable in severely injured patients?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.10.054Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

Highly sensitive and accurate for the detection of injuries requiring intervention in haemodynamically unstable patients, FAST may underestimate intra-abdominal injuries in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Diminished accuracy of ultrasound has been reported in different cohorts of multiple injured patients. We hypothesised that multiple injured patients with a high Injury Severity Score (ISS) will have a decreased accuracy of FAST for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma.

Methods

Data from the trauma registry of a Level 1 trauma centre were retrospectively reviewed. All haemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients who underwent both FAST and CT scan of abdomen from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2005 were included in the cohort. All patients were divided into three groups according to their ISS: Group 1 included patients with an ISS from 1 to 14, Group 2 included patients with an ISS from 16 to 24, and Group 3 consisted of patients with ISS  25.

Results

3181 patients with blunt abdominal trauma included into the study were divided into the three groups according to the ISS. The mean ISS was 7.9 ± 3.97, 19.6 ± 2.48 and 41.3 ± 11.95 in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The accuracy of ultrasound was 90.6% in the group of patients with the highest ISS (≥25) compared with 97.5 and 97.1 for Groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). Similarly, ultrasound had a significantly lower sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for patients in Group 3 compared with the first two groups (p < 0.001). There was a significantly lower sensitivity in Group 2 compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001), but no differences in specificity, accuracy, PPV or NPV were demonstrated.

Conclusion

Patients with high ISS are at increased risk of having ultrasound-occult injuries and have a lower accuracy of their ultrasound examination than patients with low and moderate ISS.

Introduction

Focused assessment with sonography for trauma is an integral part of the evaluation of blunt trauma patients. Fast, portable and easily integrated into the resuscitation of the trauma patient, ultrasonography (US) has become a standard screening tool widely used by most modern trauma centres.

Most investigators agree that US offers high sensitivity (60–98%), specificity (84–98%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (97–99%).8, 18, 31 Although this has led to widespread acceptance of US as an initial screening tool, the clinical conditions in which it is most accurate in the assessment and management of trauma patients have yet to be determined.

Highly sensitive and accurate for the detection of injuries requiring intervention in haemodynamically unstable patients, FAST may underestimate intra-abdominal injuries in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma.13 The US evaluation of blunt trauma patients with simultaneous head, chest and pelvic injuries may become even more challenging. Ballard and co-workers studied 102 patients with spine and pelvic fractures who had FAST examinations, and reported 13 false negative (FN) US results for detecting free fluid in 70 patients with pelvic fractures. Based on these data they concluded that patients with pelvic ring fractures should undergo a CT scan of the abdomen.3 Diminished accuracy of US was also found in patients with multiple trauma and low GCS.26 Yoshii et al. studied 1239 patients, and reported 19 (2%) FN and 44 (11%) false positive (FP) results of US exam. All patients in the study were confirmed to have free fluid and intra-abdominal injury by either subsequent laparotomy or CT scan. In all FP results, minimal free fluid was identified by US and not seen in either laparotomy or CT scan. Of these, 18 patients had chest trauma.31

We hypothesised that multiple injured blunt trauma patients with a high Injury Severity Score (ISS) will have an increased rate of FN and FP FAST results in detecting free fluid and thus a decreased accuracy for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma.

This study was approved by the University of Miami Institutional Review Board.

Section snippets

Patients and methods

Data from the trauma registry of a Level 1 trauma centre were retrospectively reviewed.

All haemodynamically stable (systolic blood pressure > 100 mmHg, heart rate < 110) blunt trauma patients who underwent both US as a part of initial assessment and CT scan of the abdomen from 2000 to 2005 were included in the cohort. All patients were divided into 3 groups according to their ISS—1: ISS 1–14; 2: ISS 16–24; 3: ISS  25. The age, gender, mechanism of injury, physiologic parameters, laboratory test

Results

The Ryder Trauma Center admitted 9870 patients from 2000 to 2005. Excluded from the study were 2997 patients with penetrating trauma. An additional 2580 patients did not undergo either an US examination or CT scan, as per the attending trauma surgeon's discretion, were also excluded. US was performed on 5686 patients with blunt trauma. After excluding 1112 haemodynamically unstable patients (systolic blood pressure <90) and 1393 patients who did not have a CT scan, 3181 haemodynamically stable

Discussion

Although US has gained significant popularity, the clinical conditions in which it is most accurate in the assessment and management of trauma patients have yet to be determined. The benefits and limitations of US following blunt abdominal trauma have been extensively discussed in recent literature. Relevant literature supports the view that US is a good screening tool for blunt abdominal trauma.4, 9, 11, 12

In current practice, US has an important role in the identification of unstable trauma

References (31)

  • R.B. Ballard et al.

    An algorithm to reduce the incidence of false-negative FAST examinations in patients at high risk for occult injury. Focused assessment for the sonographic examination of the trauma patient

    J Am Coll Surg

    (1999)
  • F.M. Abu-Zidan et al.

    Blunt abdominal trauma: comparison of ultrasonography and computed tomography in a district general hospital

    Australas Radiol

    (1999)
  • S.P. Baker et al.

    The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care

    J Trauma

    (1974)
  • P.J. Bode et al.

    Sonography in a clinical algorithm for early evaluation of 1671 patients with blunt abdominal trauma

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1999)
  • M.A. Brown et al.

    Blunt abdominal trauma: screening U/S in 2,693 patients

    Radiology

    (2001)
  • M.O. Dolich et al.

    2576 ultrasounds for blunt trauma

    J Trauma

    (2001)
  • X.L. Griffin et al.

    Are diagnostic peritoneal lavage or focused abdominal sonography for trauma safe screening investigation for hemodynamically stable patients after blunt abdominal trauma? A review of the literature

    J Trauma

    (2007)
  • A.W. Kirpatrick et al.

    The hand-held FAST: experience with hand-held trauma sonography in a level-1 urban trauma center

    Injury

    (2002)
  • J.P. McGahan et al.

    Blunt abdominal trauma: the role of emergent sonography and a review of the literature

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1999)
  • J.P. McGahan et al.

    Use of ultrasound in the patients with acute abdominal trauma

    J Ultrasound Med

    (1997)
  • M.G. McKenney et al.

    1000 consecutive ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma

    J Trauma

    (1996)
  • K.L. McKenney et al.

    Sonography as the primary screening technique for blunt abdominal trauma: experience with 899 patients

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1998)
  • M.T. Miller et al.

    Not so fast

    J Trauma

    (2003)
  • J.R. Richards et al.

    Bowel and mesenteric injury: evaluation with emergency abdominal ultrasound

    Radiology

    (1999)
  • J.R. Richards et al.

    Blunt abdominal trauma in children: evaluation with emergency US

    Radiology

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text