• Yongsong Xu, Runze Wang, Mengmeng Zhu, Xuexue Li, Xiaodong Pan, Tong Ni, and Shusheng Zhou.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Anhui Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230001, Anhui, China (Xu YS, Wang RZ, Zhu MM, Li XX, Pan XD, Ni T); Department of Intensive Care Unit, Anhui Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230001, Anhui, China (Zhou SS). Corresponding author: Zhou Shusheng, Email: zhouss108@163.com.
• Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2018 Jan 1; 30 (1): 61-66.

ObjectiveTo investigate the diagnostic value of dynamic-extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (D-EFAST) in patients with multiple trauma in intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsA prospective clinical study was conducted. Eighty patients with multiple trauma admitted to ICU of Anhui Provincial Hospital from September 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2016 were enrolled. Extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) check was conducted at first, for those who had positive findings diagnosis was confirmed by immediately CT examination or surgical exploration. If it was negative, the patients received E-FAST every morning for 7 days (defined as D-EFAST), for those with positive findings, immediately CT or surgery was performed to clarify the diagnosis. The final clinical diagnosis was used as the "gold standard" to calculate the diagnostic accordance rate of EFAST and D-EFAST examination technique for pneumothorax, pleural effusion, spleen injury, kidney damage, liver damage, gastrointestinal injury, pericardial effusion, bladder rupture, and pancreatic injury, as well as their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy rate, and missed diagnosis rate, and the difference between EFAST and D-EFAST was compared.ResultsThere were 4 patients excluded because of death and abandoning treatment, and finally 76 patients were included in the study. The total sensitivity of E-FAST examination technique for pneumothorax, pleural effusion, spleen injury, liver damage, gastrointestinal injury, pericardial effusion, and bladder rupture was 75.9% (66/87), and the specificity was 98.3% (587/597), the positive predictive value was 86.8% (66/76), and the negative predictive value was 96.5% (587/608), the accuracy rate was 95.5% (653/684), and the rate of missed diagnosis was 24.1% (21/87). The most of the delayed injury in patients with multiple trauma occurred at 2-7 days after injury with incidence of 4.8% (33/684). The diagnostic sensitivity of D-EFAST for delayed injury was 98.3% (118/120), the specificity was 99.8% (563/564), the positive predictive value was 99.2% (118/119), the negative predictive value was 99.6% (563/565), the diagnostic accuracy rate was 99.6% (681/684), and rate of missed diagnosis was 1.7% (2/120). When the final clinical diagnosis was set as the "gold standard", D-EFAST technology for the detection rate was 98.3% (118/120) for patients with multiple trauma on organ injury while the detection rate of E-FAST was 75.9% (66/87), with statistical significant difference (P < 0.01), indicating that D-EFAST was better than E-FAST in check of multiple trauma patients with organ injury.ConclusionsAlthough the E-FAST technology can quickly diagnose the multiple trauma patients and win the rescue time for critical patients, multiple trauma patients injured after 2-7 days prone to delayed damage and are difficult to detect, and D-EFAST can be used to find delayed damage earlier, and reduce the misdiagnosis rate of multiple trauma patients.

10 keywords...

hide…