Comparison of computed tomography angiography and physical exam in the evaluation of arterial injury in extremity trauma

Abstract

BackgroundCT angiography (CTA) is increasingly used in the evaluation of arterial injury in extremity trauma. While it may provide additional objective data, it comes with inherent risks and expense. The purpose of this study was to compare CTA to physical exam in the evaluation of arterial injury in extremity trauma. MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent CTA for evaluation of upper or lower extremity trauma at a Level 1 trauma center over a 10 month period. Patients were classified based on initial vascular exam (normal, soft signs, hard signs), and arterial injury on CTA was classified as major (named arteries) or minor (un-named arteries). We evaluated rates of vascular intervention in each group and compared the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for physical exam and CTA in identifying arterial injury requiring intervention. ResultsA total of 135 CTA studies were included. On initial vascular exam, 71% of patients had a normal exam, 22% had soft signs, and 6% had hard signs. The NPVs for arterial injury requiring intervention of a normal physical exam and negative CTA were both 100%. The PPVs for arterial injury requiring intervention of major injury on CTA and hard signs on physical exam were 35% and 50%, respectively. ConclusionA normal physical exam can likely rule out the need for vascular intervention and eliminate the need for CTA. Additionally, the presence of hard signs on physical exam is potentially superior to CTA in predicting the need for vascular intervention.