Re-thinking the value of cross-sectional torso imaging for ground-level fall patients with altered mental status: Outcomes from a level 1 trauma center

Abstract

IntroductionPatients with altered mental status (AMS) are often excluded from studies evaluating the utility of computed tomography of the torso (CTT) after ground level falls (GLF). It is not known whether CTT identifies otherwise undetectable injuries in patients with AMS after GLF. We sought to describe the value of performing CTT in patients with AMS after GLF, and hypothesized that CTT would not identify new, clinically significant injuries in patients with a normal torso physical exam (PE) and normal chest and pelvic radiographs (CXR/PXR). MethodsSingle-institution retrospective cohort study of GLF patients (≤1 m) with and without AMS (GCS <15, blood alcohol level >150 mg/dL, intubation prior to hospital evaluation), 2015–2019. Traumatic injury identification on CTT was evaluated in the context of normal/abnormal torso PE (based on provider documentation) and normal CXR/PXR. Results1195 patients met inclusion criteria; 344 had AMS, of which 129 (37.5 %) underwent CTT. A further 851 patients had normal mental status, of which 180 (21.2 %) underwent CTT. Patients with a normal PE with AMS (N = 79) and without AMS (N = 38) had a similar rate of new injury discovery on CTT (6.3% vs. 7.9 %, p = 1.00). Negative PE had a negative predictive value (NPV) for identification of a new, acute traumatic injury of 92.4 % (95 % CI: 0.84–0.96) in patients with AMS while normal PE, CXR, and PXR had a NPV of 96.0 % (95 % CI: 0.80–0.99). Among patients with CTT, patients with AMS had a significantly lower rate of acute traumatic injury on CTT compared to alert patients (26.4 % vs. 48.9 %, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, AMS was not positively associated with likelihood of identifying acute traumatic injury on CTT. ConclusionsIn patients sustaining GLFs who present with AMS and who otherwise have a negative PE, CXR, and PXR, CTT is very unlikely to identify new traumatic injuries. Strong consideration should be given to forego cross-sectional imaging in this patient population.