We have located links that may give you full text access.
Frequency, Recognition, and Potential Risk Factors of Incidental Findings on Trauma Computed Tomography Scans: A Cross-Sectional Study at an Urban Level One Trauma Center.
Journal of Acute Medicine 2020 September 2
Background: Computed tomography (CT) use in injured patients has continuously increased in the past decades. We designed and undertook this study to evaluate the frequency, and potential risks of incidental findings (IFs), and how they were processed in trauma patients receiving CT scans.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed CT scans, official CT reports, and basic demographics in trauma patients who received CT scans at our emergency department in 2016. Scans with IFs prompted a detailed review of medical records to determine clinical significance and how they were processed. IFs were classified into three categories: category I (potentially severe condition, in-time management required), category II (not urgent, follow-up needed), and category III (of minor concern). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to determine patient characteristics associated with IFs.
Results: In the 4,092 scans enrolled, IFs were identified in 649 (15.9%). There were 13 (2.0%) category I, 306 (47.2%) category II, and 330 (50.8%) category III IFs. Patients with IFs were older than those without. No sex-based difference was found. Most (61.5%) of the scans were performed for the head; however, the abdomen had the highest IF prevalence (26.2%). Documentation about IFs was poor; 31% of category I, 91.9% of category II, and 97.0% of category III have no related record. Old age remains the risk predicting the presence of IFs, and every year of increasing age was independently associated with a higher prevalence of IFs (OR: 1.019; 95% CI: 1.015-1.024).
Conclusions: IFs are common in trauma CT scans; however, recognition and management remain poor. Abdomen and chest scans, and CT in older patients should remind us of increasing risks of IFs.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed CT scans, official CT reports, and basic demographics in trauma patients who received CT scans at our emergency department in 2016. Scans with IFs prompted a detailed review of medical records to determine clinical significance and how they were processed. IFs were classified into three categories: category I (potentially severe condition, in-time management required), category II (not urgent, follow-up needed), and category III (of minor concern). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to determine patient characteristics associated with IFs.
Results: In the 4,092 scans enrolled, IFs were identified in 649 (15.9%). There were 13 (2.0%) category I, 306 (47.2%) category II, and 330 (50.8%) category III IFs. Patients with IFs were older than those without. No sex-based difference was found. Most (61.5%) of the scans were performed for the head; however, the abdomen had the highest IF prevalence (26.2%). Documentation about IFs was poor; 31% of category I, 91.9% of category II, and 97.0% of category III have no related record. Old age remains the risk predicting the presence of IFs, and every year of increasing age was independently associated with a higher prevalence of IFs (OR: 1.019; 95% CI: 1.015-1.024).
Conclusions: IFs are common in trauma CT scans; however, recognition and management remain poor. Abdomen and chest scans, and CT in older patients should remind us of increasing risks of IFs.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app