Stephen D J, Kreder H J, Day A C, McKee M D, Schemitsch E H, ElMaraghy A, Hamilton P, McLellan B
University of Toronto, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Ontario, Canada.
J Trauma. 1999 Oct;47(4):638-42. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199910000-00006.
To determine the accuracy of intravenous contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) in the detection of potentially life-threatening retroperitoneal hemorrhage in patients sustaining pelvic fractures, acetabular fractures or both.
Retrospective review of sequential patients identified over a 1-year period by using a prospectively collected trauma database at two Level I trauma centers.
A group of patients admitted to one of two Level I trauma centers with pelvic or acetabular injuries between September 1, 1995, and September 30, 1996, was identified by using a prospectively collected trauma database. From this cohort, we selected those individuals who had undergone intravenous CECT scanning within 24 hours after admission and who had an Abbreviated Injury Score more than 3 because of their pelvic injury. Those individuals who required arterial embolization for uncontrolled hemodynamic shock were categorized as having "significant arterial bleeding" attributable to their pelvic injury. Individuals who regained hemodynamic ,stability without embolization were categorized as having "no significant arterial bleeding." Two observers who were blinded to clinical information and the results of angiography reviewed all injury radiographs and computed tomographic scans. The presence or absence of contrast extravasation on intravenous CECT was recorded. Each case was then categorized into a 2 x 2 table depending on the presence of contrast extravasation on CECT and the need for arterial embolization to determine the accuracy of the "contrast extravasation sign."
Of the 192 eligible patients, 111 met the inclusion criteria. Eleven patients required an angiogram for ongoing hemodynamic instability. The sensitivity of extravasation on contrast enhanced computed tomography representing a significant arterial bleeding was 80%, and the specificity was 98%. The predictive value of a positive contrast "extravasation sign" was 80%, whereas the predictive value of a negative test was 98%. The likelihood ratio of a positive test was 40.4, and the likelihood ratio of a negative test was 0.204.
The finding of contrast extravasation on CECT is highly suggestive of significant arterial bleeding that requires early angiographic embolization to restore hemodynamic stability.
确定静脉注射造影剂增强计算机断层扫描(CECT)在检测骨盆骨折、髋臼骨折或两者皆有的患者中潜在危及生命的腹膜后出血方面的准确性。
回顾性分析在两个一级创伤中心通过前瞻性收集的创伤数据库在1年期间确定的连续患者。
利用前瞻性收集的创伤数据库,确定1995年9月1日至1996年9月30日期间入住两个一级创伤中心之一且有骨盆或髋臼损伤的一组患者。从该队列中,我们选择那些入院后24小时内接受静脉CECT扫描且因骨盆损伤而简略损伤评分为3分以上的个体。那些因血流动力学休克无法控制而需要动脉栓塞的个体被归类为因骨盆损伤而有“严重动脉出血”。在未进行栓塞的情况下恢复血流动力学稳定的个体被归类为“无严重动脉出血”。两名对临床信息和血管造影结果不知情的观察者审查了所有损伤X线片和计算机断层扫描。记录静脉CECT上是否存在造影剂外渗。然后根据CECT上造影剂外渗的情况和是否需要动脉栓塞,将每个病例分类到一个2×2表格中,以确定“造影剂外渗征”的准确性。
在192例符合条件的患者中,111例符合纳入标准。11例患者因持续的血流动力学不稳定需要进行血管造影。造影剂增强计算机断层扫描上造影剂外渗表示严重动脉出血的敏感性为80%,特异性为98%。阳性造影“外渗征”的预测值为80%,而阴性检查的预测值为98%。阳性检查的似然比为40.4,阴性检查的似然比为0.204。
CECT上发现造影剂外渗高度提示严重动脉出血,需要早期血管造影栓塞以恢复血流动力学稳定。