Lynch K, Johansen K
Department of Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle 98104.
Ann Surg. 1991 Dec;214(6):737-41. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199112000-00016.
Although highly accurate, contrast arteriography is a costly, invasive, and time-consuming method to rule out occult arterial damage in injured extremities. Accordingly the authors assessed the sensitivity and specificity of Doppler-derived arterial pressure measurements in trauma victims undergoing evaluation for possible extremity arterial damage. Arterial pressure index (API) was calculated (Doppler arterial pressure distal to injury/Doppler arterial pressure in uninvolved arm), but not used in clinical decision making in 100 consecutive injured limbs in 93 trauma victims. All patients then underwent contrast arteriography. Twenty limbs had an API less than 0.90 and an abnormal arteriogram, whereas 75 had both a normal API and a normal contrast study. One limb had a significant angiographic abnormality with an API greater than 0.90; two others had API less than 0.90 but normal arteriograms. Two limbs with a normal API had false-positive arteriograms. When compared with arteriography, an API less than 0.90 had a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 97% for arterial disruption in this series. Sensitivity and specificity rose to 95% and 97% when API was compared with clinical outcome. In the absence of obvious signs of arterial injury, API may be a reasonable substitute for screening arteriography in the traumatized extremity, particularly if close follow-up observation can be assured.
尽管造影动脉造影术高度准确,但它是一种昂贵、有创且耗时的方法,用于排除受伤肢体隐匿性动脉损伤。因此,作者评估了在接受可能的肢体动脉损伤评估的创伤患者中,多普勒衍生动脉压测量的敏感性和特异性。计算了动脉压指数(API)(损伤远端的多普勒动脉压/未受伤手臂的多普勒动脉压),但在93名创伤患者的100条连续受伤肢体的临床决策中未使用。所有患者随后均接受了造影动脉造影术。20条肢体的API小于0.90且动脉造影异常,而75条肢体的API正常且造影研究正常。1条肢体的血管造影有明显异常,API大于0.90;另外2条肢体的API小于0.90但动脉造影正常。2条API正常的肢体动脉造影出现假阳性。在本系列中,与动脉造影术相比,API小于0.90对动脉破裂的敏感性为87%,特异性为97%。当将API与临床结果进行比较时,敏感性和特异性分别升至95%和97%。在没有明显动脉损伤迹象的情况下,API可能是创伤肢体筛查动脉造影的合理替代方法,特别是如果能够确保密切的随访观察。