Accuracy, reliability, and utility of the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination in the setting of thoracic gunshot wounds.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Miharu Arase, Negar Nekooei, Marco Sozzi, Morgan Schellenberg, Kazuhide Matsushima, Kenji Inaba, Matthew J Martin
{"title":"Accuracy, reliability, and utility of the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination in the setting of thoracic gunshot wounds.","authors":"Miharu Arase, Negar Nekooei, Marco Sozzi, Morgan Schellenberg, Kazuhide Matsushima, Kenji Inaba, Matthew J Martin","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) examination includes additional thoracic views beyond the standard focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination. Its validation has predominantly been conducted in blunt trauma cases. Our aim was to evaluate the eFAST examination in a targeted population with penetrating thoracic trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with thoracic gunshot wounds who underwent eFAST between 2017 and 2021 were included from a local trauma registry. Performance metrics for each component of eFAST in each window and pathological condition were analyzed across the entire population, as well as within two cohorts: survived and deceased patients. Chest tube placement rates were compared within true-positive and false-negative (FN) eFAST results for subgroups with pneumothorax or hemothorax.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 288 patients were included (male, 91% male; Injury Severity Score ≥15, 48%; and died, 17%). Thirty-nine percent required chest tube, and 18% required urgent thoracic surgical intervention. Although specificity was high (91-100%) for all components, the sensitivity was less than 50% for all thoracic views, except for \"no cardiac motion\" (100% sensitivity). Sensitivity for pericardial fluid was 47%; for pneumothorax, 22%; for hemothorax, 36%; and for peritoneal fluid, 51% in the total population. Comparing survived versus deceased cohort, the eFAST sensitivity was higher among deaths for all components. The majority of patients (>70%) with a FN eFAST for pneumothorax or hemothorax received chest tube.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The eFAST examination showed highly variable performance metrics among patients with penetrating thoracic trauma, with all thoracic components demonstrating high specificity but low overall sensitivity. Urgent interventions were frequently received in patients with FN studies.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"867-874"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004583","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) examination includes additional thoracic views beyond the standard focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination. Its validation has predominantly been conducted in blunt trauma cases. Our aim was to evaluate the eFAST examination in a targeted population with penetrating thoracic trauma.

Methods: Patients with thoracic gunshot wounds who underwent eFAST between 2017 and 2021 were included from a local trauma registry. Performance metrics for each component of eFAST in each window and pathological condition were analyzed across the entire population, as well as within two cohorts: survived and deceased patients. Chest tube placement rates were compared within true-positive and false-negative (FN) eFAST results for subgroups with pneumothorax or hemothorax.

Results: A total of 288 patients were included (male, 91% male; Injury Severity Score ≥15, 48%; and died, 17%). Thirty-nine percent required chest tube, and 18% required urgent thoracic surgical intervention. Although specificity was high (91-100%) for all components, the sensitivity was less than 50% for all thoracic views, except for "no cardiac motion" (100% sensitivity). Sensitivity for pericardial fluid was 47%; for pneumothorax, 22%; for hemothorax, 36%; and for peritoneal fluid, 51% in the total population. Comparing survived versus deceased cohort, the eFAST sensitivity was higher among deaths for all components. The majority of patients (>70%) with a FN eFAST for pneumothorax or hemothorax received chest tube.

Conclusion: The eFAST examination showed highly variable performance metrics among patients with penetrating thoracic trauma, with all thoracic components demonstrating high specificity but low overall sensitivity. Urgent interventions were frequently received in patients with FN studies.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

超声扩展聚焦评估在胸部枪伤创伤检查中的准确性、可靠性和实用性。
背景:创伤超声扩展聚焦评估(eFAST)检查包括在创伤超声标准聚焦评估之外的额外胸部视图。其验证主要是在钝性创伤病例中进行的。我们的目的是评估eFAST检查在穿透性胸外伤的目标人群中的作用。方法:从当地创伤登记处纳入2017年至2021年期间接受eFAST治疗的胸部枪伤患者。在整个人群中,以及在两个队列中:存活和死亡患者中,分析了eFAST在每个窗口和病理状态下的每个组件的性能指标。比较了气胸和血胸亚组的真阳性和假阴性(FN) eFAST结果中的胸管置入率。结果:共纳入288例患者(男性占91%;损伤严重程度评分≥15,占48%;死亡,17%)。39%的人需要胸腔插管,18%的人需要紧急胸外科手术。虽然所有成分的特异性都很高(91-100%),但除了“无心脏运动”(100%敏感性)外,所有胸片的敏感性都低于50%。心包液的敏感性为47%;气胸22%;血胸占36%;腹膜液占总人口的51%比较存活与死亡的队列,eFAST的敏感性在所有死亡因素中都更高。大多数(bbb70 %) FN eFAST治疗气胸或血胸的患者接受胸管治疗。结论:eFAST检查在穿透性胸外伤患者中显示出高度可变的表现指标,所有胸椎成分都具有高特异性,但总体敏感性较低。FN研究患者经常接受紧急干预。证据水平:预后和流行病学;IV级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信