Validity of a Set of Clinical Criteria to Rule out Injury to the Cervical Spine in Patients with Blunt Trauma
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The New England Journal of Medicine VALIDITY OF A SET OF CLINICAL CRITERIA TO RULE OUT INJURY TO THE CERVICAL SPINE IN PATIENTS WITH BLUNT TRAUMA JEROME R. HOFFMAN, M.D., WILLIAM R. MOWER, M.D., PH.D., ALLAN B. WOLFSON, M.D., KNOX H. TODD, M.D., M.P.H., AND MICHAEL I. ZUCKER, M.D., FOR THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY X-RADIOGRAPHY UTILIZATION STUDY GROUP* ABSTRACT ECAUSE unrecognized injury to the cervi- Background Because clinicians fear missing oc- cal spine can produce catastrophic neurolog- cult cervical-spine injuries, they obtain cervical radio- ic disability, clinicians liberally order radio- graphs for nearly all patients who present with blunt graphs of the cervical spine, and as a result trauma. Previous research suggests that a set of clin- Bthe majority of the radiographs are normal.1-8 Elim- ical criteria (decision instrument) can identify patients inating even a small proportion of the approximately who have an extremely low probability of injury and 800,000 cervical-spine radiographs ordered annually who consequently have no need for imaging studies. in the United States for patients with blunt trauma Methods We conducted a prospective, observation- could lead to substantial savings and decrease pa- al study of such a decision instrument at 21 centers 9-11 across the United States. The decision instrument re- tients’ exposure to ionizing radiation. 8,12-23 quired patients to meet five criteria in order to be Several small studies have suggested that pa- classified as having a low probability of injury: no tients with blunt trauma have a low probability of midline cervical tenderness, no focal neurologic def- injury to the cervical spine if they meet all five of the icit, normal alertness, no intoxication, and no pain- following criteria: they do not have tenderness at the ful, distracting injury. We examined the performance posterior midline of the cervical spine, they have no of the decision instrument in 34,069 patients who un- focal neurologic deficit, they have a normal level of derwent radiography of the cervical spine after blunt alertness, they have no evidence of intoxication, and trauma. they do not have a clinically apparent, painful injury Results The decision instrument identified all but that might distract them from the pain of a cervical- 8 of the 818 patients who had cervical-spine injury spine injury. (sensitivity, 99.0 percent [95 percent confidence in- terval, 98.0 to 99.6 percent]). The negative predictive Although the combination of these five criteria value was 99.8 percent (95 percent confidence inter- was reported to have a sensitivity of 100 percent for val, 99.6 to 100 percent), the specificity was 12.9 per- ruling out cervical-spine injury, the lower confidence cent, and the positive predictive value was 2.7 percent. limit for the sensitivity of the instrument was only 89 Only two of the patients classified as unlikely to have percent, which is too low to justify its widespread use.8 an injury according to the decision instrument met We organized the National Emergency X-Radiogra- the preset definition of a clinically significant injury phy Utilization Study (NEXUS) to validate this set (sensitivity, 99.6 percent [95 percent confidence in- of criteria and to test the hypothesis that patients terval, 98.6 to 100 percent]; negative predictive val- with blunt trauma who meet all five of the above cri- ue, 99.9 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 99.8 teria have a very low probability of clinically signifi- to 100 percent]; specificity, 12.9 percent; positive pre- 9 dictive value, 1.9 percent), and only one of these two cant injury to the cervical spine. patients received surgical treatment. According to the METHODS results of assessment with the decision instrument, radiographic imaging could have been avoided in the Participating Centers cases of 4309 (12.6 percent) of the 34,069 evaluated Twenty-one centers across the United States participated in this patients. prospective, observational study. Among them were university Conclusions A simple decision instrument based and community hospitals, hospitals with and without residency on clinical criteria can help physicians to identify re- programs, and public and private hospitals; they varied in size, in liably the patients who need radiography of the cer- the level of activity in the emergency department, and in the level vical spine after blunt trauma. Application of this in- of trauma care they provided. The study was designed to assess strument could reduce the use of imaging in such the validity of the following five criteria (the decision instrument) patients. (N Engl J Med 2000;343:94-9.) ©2000, Massachusetts Medical Society. From the Emergency Medicine Center and the Departments of Medi- cine (J.R.H., W.R.M., M.I.Z.) and Radiology (M.I.Z.), University of Cal- ifornia, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, Los Angeles; the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pitts- burgh (A.B.W.); and the Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta (K.H.T.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Mower at the UCLA Emergency Medicine Center, 924 Westwood Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, or at nexusgrp@ ucla.edu. *The centers and investigators participating in the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) are listed in the Appendix. 94 · July 13, 2000 The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on July 28, 2012. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2000 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. VALIDITY OF CLINICAL CRITERIA TO RULE OUT INJURY TO THE CERVICAL SPINE IN PATIENTS WITH BLUNT TRAUMA in ruling out cervical-spine injury in patients with blunt trauma: physician believed that even the minimal delay associated with the absence of tenderness at the posterior midline of the cervical completing the brief data form might be harmful to the patient, spine, the absence of a focal neurologic deficit, a normal level of the physician could obtain the study voucher before imaging by alertness, no evidence of intoxication, and absence of clinically indicating that the patient was “unstable.” In such cases, the cli- apparent pain that might distract the patient from the pain of a nicians were encouraged to complete an assessment of the patient cervical-spine injury. Patients who met all five criteria were con- with respect to the five criteria as soon as possible, preferably be- sidered to have a low probability of injury and not to require ra- fore the results of radiography were known. Designating a patient diographic or other imaging. as “unstable” was considered equivalent to identifying a clinically At each center, a physician in the emergency department served significant injury (defined below) and was a reason for consider- as a liaison to the study investigators, and a designated radiologist ing the patient not to have a low probability of injury. ensured that the collection of radiologic data was carried out The five criteria for a low probability of injury were not explic- completely and correctly. The liaison physician at each center at- itly defined, but possible interpretations of the criteria were re- tended a one-hour training session led by the regional study co- viewed during the training sessions at each center. In addition, in- ordinator, at which the overall study design was presented and the formation provided to the liaison physician and clinicians at each decision instrument and each of the five criteria were explained. site included descriptions of possible characteristics that could ex- The liaison physicians were then responsible for training the par- clude patients from being classified as having a low risk. This in- ticipating clinicians in their emergency departments, in some cas- formation was included in the guidelines available to the clinicians es through similar brief, formal training sessions and in others, in- on the computer (and is available on request from the authors). formally. Searchable information and guidelines (“help” screens) were available on computer to assist all the participating clinicians. Assessment of Injuries All the radiographs were formally interpreted by the designated Patients radiologists at the study sites. Diagnoses of cervical-spine injury All the patients with blunt trauma who underwent radiography and determination of the type of any fracture were made accord- of the cervical spine in a participating emergency department ing to the final interpretation of all the imaging studies. When were included in the study. Patients with penetrating trauma and the results they reported were ambiguous, the radiologists re- those who underwent cervical-spine imaging for any other rea- viewed both their reports and the original radiographs to make son, unrelated to trauma, were not eligible for inclusion. The par- the final determination of the type of any fracture. Neither the ticipating clinicians were reminded at training sessions that although formal interpretation by the radiologists nor the classification of use of clinical criteria for risk assessment (“clinical clearance”) of injuries was done with knowledge of findings recorded on study patients with trauma had come into wider practice, there was no data forms. definitive evidence regarding the safety of the clinical decision instru- A list of potential cervical-spine injuries was created before data ment on which the study focused. They were also cautioned against were collected, and each injury on this list was categorized as clin- using the set of criteria being tested as the sole determinant of ically significant or not clinically significant (Table 1). Injuries that whether patients needed imaging. The ultimate decision whether were not clinically significant were those that typically require no to order radiography was made at the discretion of the treating specific treatment and those that, if not identified, would be ex- physician, according to the criteria he or she ordinarily used, and pected to result in no harm.