• Nathan J Alcasid, Cynthia J Susai, Kian C Banks, Lara Senekjian, Timothy D Browder, and Gregory P Victorino.
• Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, East Bay, Oakland, CA, USA. Electronic address: Nathan.alcasid@ucsf.edu.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Aug 1; 82: 333633-36.

BackgroundRoutine evaluation with CTA for patients with isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma and normal ankle-brachial-indices (ABI) remains controversial. While prior literature has found normal ABI's (≥0.9) and a normal clinical examination to be adequate for safe discharge, there remains concern for missed injuries which could lead to delayed surgical intervention and unnecessary morbidity. Our hypothesis was that routine CTA after isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination is not cost-effective.MethodsWe performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a CTA routinely compared to clinical observation and ABI evaluation in hemodynamically normal patients with isolated penetrating lower extremity trauma. Our base case was a patient that sustained penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs that received a CTA in the trauma bay. Costs, probability, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were generated from published literature.ResultsClinical evaluation only (no CTA) was cost-effective with a cost of $2056.13 and 0.98 QALYs gained compared to routine CTA which had increased costs of $7449.91 and lower QALYs 0.92. Using one-way sensitivity analysis, routine CTA does not become the cost-effective strategy until the cost of a missed injury reaches $210,075.83.ConclusionsPatients with isolated, penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination do not warrant routine CTA as there is no benefit with increased costs.Published by Elsevier Inc.

24 keywords...

hide…