Effect of Abdominal Ultrasound on Clinical Care, Outcomes, and Resource Use Among Children With Blunt Torso Trauma: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Emergency Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Ma  OJ, Mateer  JR, Ogata  M, Kefer  MP, Wittmann  D, Aprahamian  C.  Prospective analysis of a rapid trauma ultrasound examination performed by emergency physicians.  J Trauma. 1995;38(6):879-885.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Rozycki  GS, Ochsner  MG, Jaffin  JH, Champion  HR.  Prospective evaluation of surgeons’ use of ultrasound in the evaluation of trauma patients.  J Trauma. 1993;34(4):516-526.Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Stengel  D, Rademacher  G, Ekkernkamp  A, Güthoff  C, Mutze  S.  Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD004446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Holmes  JF, Gladman  A, Chang  CH.  Performance of abdominal ultrasonography in pediatric blunt trauma patients: a meta-analysis.  J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42(9):1588-1594.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Melniker  LA, Leibner  E, McKenney  MG, Lopez  P, Briggs  WM, Mancuso  CA.  Randomized controlled clinical trial of point-of-care, limited ultrasonography for trauma in the emergency department.  Ann Emerg Med. 2006;48(3):227-235.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Rose  JS, Levitt  MA, Porter  J,  et al.  Does the presence of ultrasound really affect computed tomographic scan use? a prospective randomized trial of ultrasound in trauma.  J Trauma. 2001;51(3):545-550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Baka  AG, Delgado  CA, Simon  HK.  Current use and perceived utility of ultrasound for evaluation of pediatric compared with adult trauma patients.  Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002;18(3):163-167.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Menaker  J, Blumberg  S, Wisner  DH,  et al; Intra-abdominal Injury Study Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN).  Use of the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination and its impact on abdominal computed tomography use in hemodynamically stable children with blunt torso trauma.  J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(3):427-432.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Holmes  JF, Lillis  K, Monroe  D,  et al.  Identifying children at very low risk of clinically important blunt abdominal injuries.  Ann Emerg Med. 2013;62(2).Google Scholar
10.
American College of Emergency Physicians. https://www.acep.org/clinical---practice-management/ultrasound. Accessed May 23, 2017.
11.
Scaife  ER, Rollins  MD, Barnhart  DC,  et al.  The role of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) in pediatric trauma evaluation.  J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(6):1377-1383.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fox  JC, Boysen  M, Gharahbaghian  L,  et al.  Test characteristics of focused assessment of sonography for trauma for clinically significant abdominal free fluid in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma.  Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(5):477-482.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Holmes  JF, Harris  D, Battistella  FD.  Performance of abdominal ultrasonography in blunt trauma patients with out-of-hospital or emergency department hypotension.  Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43(3):354-361.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Holmes  JF, Brant  WE, Bond  WF, Sokolove  PE, Kuppermann  N.  Emergency department ultrasonography in the evaluation of hypotensive and normotensive children with blunt abdominal trauma.  J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36(7):968-973.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Newcombe  RG.  Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions.  Stat Med. 1998;17(8):873-890.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
June 13, 2017

Effect of Abdominal Ultrasound on Clinical Care, Outcomes, and Resource Use Among Children With Blunt Torso Trauma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
  • 2Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
  • 3Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
  • 4Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
JAMA. 2017;317(22):2290-2296. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.6322
Key Points

Question  Does the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination safely improve care when used in the emergency department (ED) evaluation of hemodynamically stable children with blunt torso trauma?

Findings  In this trial of 925 hemodynamically stable children with blunt torso trauma, randomization to the FAST vs standard trauma examination did not result in significant improvement in the rate of abdominal computed tomographic scans, time in the ED, hospital charges, or missed intra-abdominal injuries vs children randomized to standard trauma evaluation.

Meaning  The study findings do not support the routine use of FAST in the ED for hemodynamically stable children with blunt torso trauma.

Abstract

Importance  The utility of the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination in children is unknown.

Objective  To determine if the FAST examination during initial evaluation of injured children improves clinical care.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A randomized clinical trial (April 2012-May 2015) that involved 975 hemodynamically stable children and adolescents younger than 18 years treated for blunt torso trauma at the University of California, Davis Medical Center, a level I trauma center.

Interventions  Patients were randomly assigned to a standard trauma evaluation with the FAST examination by the treating ED physician or a standard trauma evaluation alone.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Coprimary outcomes were rate of abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans in the ED, missed intra-abdominal injuries, ED length of stay, and hospital charges.

Results  Among the 925 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 9.7 [5.3] years; 575 males [62%]), all completed the study. A total of 50 patients (5.4%, 95% CI, 4.0% to 7.1%) were diagnosed with intra-abdominal injuries, including 40 (80%; 95% CI, 66% to 90%) who had intraperitoneal fluid found on an abdominal CT scan, and 9 patients (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.44% to 1.8%) underwent laparotomy. The proportion of patients with abdominal CT scans was 241 of 460 (52.4%) in the FAST group and 254 of 465 (54.6%) in the standard care–only group (difference, −2.2%; 95% CI, −8.7% to 4.2%). One case of missed intra-abdominal injury occurred in a patient in the FAST group and none in the control group (difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, −0.6% to 1.2%). The mean ED length of stay was 6.03 hours in the FAST group and 6.07 hours in the standard care–only group (difference, −0.04 hours; 95% CI, −0.47 to 0.40 hours). Median hospital charges were $46 415 in the FAST group and $47 759 in the standard care–only group (difference, −$1180; 95% CI, −$6651 to $4291).

Conclusions and Relevance  Among hemodynamically stable children treated in an ED following blunt torso trauma, the use of FAST compared with standard care only did not improve clinical care, including use of resources; ED length of stay; missed intra-abdominal injuries; or hospital charges. These findings do not support the routine use of FAST in this setting.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01540318

×