Comparison of clinical performance of cranial computed tomography rules in patients with minor head injury: a multicenter prospective study.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.
Academic Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.2). 06/2011; 18(6):597-604. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01094.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective was to compare the predictive performance of three previously derived cranial computed tomography (CT) rules, the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), and National Emergency X-Ray Utilization Study (NEXUS)-II, for detecting clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the need for neurosurgical intervention in patients with blunt head trauma.
This was a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of patients with blunt head trauma from June 2008 to May 2009. The historical and physical examination components of the CCHR, NOC, and NEXUS-II were documented on a data collection form and the performance of each of the three rules was compared. Patient eligibility for each specific rule was defined exactly as previously described for each specific rule. To compare the three decision rules in terms of sensitivity and specificity, an intersection cohort satisfying inclusion criteria of all three decision rules was derived. The primary outcome was clinically important TBI, and the secondary outcome was neurosurgical intervention. The sensitivity and specificity of each rule were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We also calculated the potential reduction rate in cranial CT scan utilization realized by theoretical implementation of these rules.
A total of 7,131 patients were prospectively enrolled, including 692 (9.7%) with clinical TBI. Among the enrolled population, patients eligible for CCHR, NOC, and NEXUS-II totaled 696, 677, and 2,951, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinically important brain injury were as follows: CCHR, 112 of 144 (79.2%, 95% CI = 70.8% to 86.0%) and 228 of 552 (41.3%, 95% CI = 37.3% to 45.5%); NOC, 91 of 99 (91.9%, 95% CI = 84.7% to 96.5%) and 125 of 558 (22.4%, 95% CI = 19.0% to 26.1%); and NEXUS-II, 511 of 576 (88.7%, 95% CI = 85.8% to 91.2%) and 1,104 of 2,375 (46.5%, 95% CI = 44.5% to 48.5%). The sensitivity and specificity for neurosurgical intervention were as follows: CCHR, 100% (95% CI = 59.0% to 100.0%) and 38.3% (95% CI = 34.5% to 41.9%); NOC, 100% (95% CI = 54.1% to 100.0%) and 20.4% (95% CI = 17.4% to 23.7%); and NEXUS-II, 95.1% (95% CI = 90.1% to 98.0%) and 41.4% (95% CI = 39.5% to 43.2%). Among the enrolled population, intersection patients of CCHR, NOC, and NEXUS-II totaled 588. The sensitivity and specificity for clinically important brain injury were as follows: CCHR, 73 of 98 (74.5%, 95% CI = 64.7% to 82.8%) and 201 of 490 (41.0%, 95% CI = 36.6% to 45.5%); NOC, 89 of 98 (90.8%, 95% CI = 83.3% to 95.7%) and 112 of 490 (22.9%, 95% CI = 19.2% to 26.8%); and NEXUS-II, 82 of 98 (83.7%, 95% CI = 74.8% to 90.4%) and 172 of 490 (35.1%, 95% CI = 30.9% to 39.5%). The potential reduction in emergency CT scans by using these decision rules would have been higher with the NEXUS-II rule (39.6%, 95% CI = 37.8% to 41.4%) than with the CCHR rule (27.0%, 95% CI = 23.7% to 30.3%) or NOC rule (20.2%, 95% CI = 17.2% to 23.3%).
For clinically important TBI, the three cranial CT decision rules had much lower sensitivities in this population than the original published studies, while the specificities were comparable to those studies. The sensitivities for neurosurgical intervention, however, were comparable to the original studies. The NEXUS-II rule showed the highest reduction rate for CT scans compared to other rules, but failed to identify all undergoing neurosurgical intervention for their original inclusion cohort.

Download full-text


Available from: Ki Ok Ahn, Nov 21, 2014
  • Source
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 12/2013; 57(6):684-685. DOI:10.1111/1754-9485.12109 · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the New Orleans Criteria and the New Orleans Criteria according to their diagnostic performance in patients with mild head injury. The study was designed and conducted prospectively after obtaining ethics committee approval. Data was collected prospectively for patients presenting to the ED with Minor Head Injury. After clinical assessment, a standard CT scan of the head was performed in patients having at least one of the risk factors stated in one of the two clinical decision rules Patients with positive traumatic head injury according to BT results defined as Group 1 and those who had no intracranial injury defined as Group 2. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 11.00 for Windows. ROC analyze was performed to determine the effectiveness of detecting intracranial injury with both decision rules. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant RESULTS: 175 patients enrolled the study. Male to female ratio was 1.5. The mean age of the patients was 45 +/- 21,3 in group 1 and 49 +/- 20,6 in group 2. The most common mechanism of trauma was falling. The sensitivity and specificity of CCHR were respectively 76.4% and 41.7%, whereas sensitivity and specificity of NOC were 88.2% and 6.9%. The CCHR has higher specificity, PPV and NPV for important clinical outcomes than does the NOC.
    World Journal of Emergency Surgery 04/2014; 9(1):31. DOI:10.1186/1749-7922-9-31 · 1.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Assess factors that influence both the patient and the physician in the setting of minor head injury in adults and the decision-making process around CT utilization. Methods This is a convenience sample survey study of adult minor head injury patients (GCS 15) and their physicians regarding factors influencing the decision to use CT to evaluate for intra-cranial hemorrhage. Once a head CT was ordered and before the results were known, both the patient and physician were given a one-page survey asking questions about their concern for injury and rationale for CT use. CT results and surveys were then recorded in a centralized database and analyzed. Results 584 subjects were enrolled over the 27 month study period. The rate of any intra-cranial hemorrhage was 3.3%. Both the physicians (6% pre-test estimate) and the patients (22% pre-test estimate) over-estimated risk for hemorrhage. Clinical decision rules were not met in 46% of cases where CT was used. Physicians listed an average of 5 factors from a list of 9 that influenced their decision to order CT. Patients listed an average of 1.7 factors influencing their decision to present to the Emergency Department for evaluation. Many patients felt cost (45%) and low risk stratification (34%) should weigh heavily in the decision to use CT. If asked to limit CT utilization, physicians were able to identify a group with less than 2% risk of injury. Conclusions Patients with low risk of intra-cranial injury continue to be evaluated by CT. Physician decision-making around the use of CT to evaluate minor head injury is multi-factorial. Shared decision-making between the patient and the physician in a low risk minor head injury encounter shows promise as a method to reduce CT utilization in this low risk cohort.
    Injury 09/2014; 45(9). DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2014.05.012 · 2.46 Impact Factor