Elsevier

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Volume 48, Issue 3, September 2006, Pages 227-235
Annals of Emergency Medicine

Trauma/original research
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Point-of-Care, Limited Ultrasonography for Trauma in the Emergency Department: The First Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program Trial

Presented orally at the American College of Emergency Physicians Scientific Assembly, October 2004, San Francisco, CA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.01.008Get rights and content

Study objective

Annually, 38 million people are evaluated for trauma, the leading cause of death in persons younger than 45 years. The primary objective is to assess whether using a protocol inclusive of point-of-care, limited ultrasonography (PLUS), compared to usual care (control), among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected torso trauma decreased time to operative care.

Methods

The study was a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted during a 6-month period at 2 Level I trauma centers. The intervention was PLUS conducted by verified clinician sonographers. The primary outcome measure was time from ED arrival to transfer to operative care; secondary outcomes included computed tomography (CT) use, length of stay, complications, and charges. Regression models controlled for confounders and analyzed physician-to-physician variability. All analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Results are presented as mean, first-quartile, median, and third-quartile, with multiplicative change and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or percentage with odds ratio and 95% CIs.

Results

Four hundred forty-four patients with suspected torso trauma were eligible; 136 patients lacked consent, and attending physicians refused enrollment of 46 patients. Two hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled: 135 PLUS patients and 127 controls. There were no important differences between groups. Time to operative care was 64% (48, 76) less for PLUS compared to control patients. PLUS patients underwent fewer CTs (odds ratio 0.16) (0.07, 0.32), spent 27% (1, 46) fewer days in hospital, and had fewer complications (odds ratio 0.16) (0.07, 0.32), and charges were 35% (19, 48) less compared to control.

Conclusion

A PLUS-inclusive protocol significantly decreased time to operative care in patients with suspected torso trauma, with improved resource use and lower charges.

Introduction

Annually, more than 38 million people are evaluated in emergency departments (EDs) for trauma, the leading cause of death in persons younger than 45 years.1 The annual incidence of torso trauma is more than 5 million, resulting in more than 500,000 operations and 50,000 deaths.1, 2 Trauma deaths result, on average, in 40 years of life lost and 18 years of productive life lost.3 Total societal costs for trauma are estimated at more than $100 billion annually in the United States alone.4

The term “golden hour” is commonly used to characterize the urgent need for the care of trauma patients.5 The golden hour paradigm states that morbidity and mortality are affected if care is delayed beyond the first hour after injury. That earlier definitive care should be associated with better outcomes is intuitive and is the basis of the modern regional trauma center approach applied in many parts of the country.6, 7, 8, 9 Defining mechanisms to decrease time to provision of definitive care in this population must be a high priority.

Point-of-care, limited ultrasonography (PLUS) examinations are brief and limited studies intended to rapidly answer highly focused clinical questions, ie, is there occult fluid in the peritoneal, pericardial, or pleural cavity? PLUS examinations are distinct from comprehensive ultrasonographic examinations provided by radiology departments in terms of availability, format, and indication.10

Published studies suggest that the accuracy of PLUS for trauma in answering highly focused clinical questions is at least 95%.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 This accuracy is comparable to that obtained by radiologists.16 In addition, the results of 2 international consensus conferences strongly recommend the use of PLUS for trauma.17, 18 Unfortunately, although the questions of accuracy, rapidity, and safety of PLUS may be discussed with great confidence, evidence-based data demonstrating improvement in therapeutic and clinical outcomes for trauma victims are lacking.19 PLUS for trauma, used as a rapid screening tool, has the potential to reduce time to diagnosis and definitive care.15, 20

There are approximately 4,700 EDs in the United States, with approximately 10% having PLUS capability; the number of centers with PLUS availability is increasing.1, 10 The proper introduction of PLUS (equipment and training) to an ED costs approximately $100,000 initially, followed by $20,000 per year to maintain a high-quality resource.21 Therefore, instituting nationwide universal access to PLUS would cost approximately a billion health care dollars during 5 years.

The Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP) is a multiphase health services research project designed to assess the effects of PLUS on patient outcomes in the emergency evaluation of common, costly, and potentially lethal clinical conditions. Toward this end, to generate hypotheses and estimate sample size for the prospective phase of this project, a pilot study was conducted using the National Trauma Data Bank of the American College of Surgeons,2 retrospectively assessing patients with torso trauma requiring operative intervention. The analysis compared time to operation, length of stay, and hospital charges in patients evaluated with early ultrasonography and patients not so evaluated.22

At analysis, the National Trauma Data Bank contained 316,975 incident reports on trauma patients, including 45,365 patients with torso trauma. Thirty-five percent of these patients underwent operative care with a mean “door to operative care” time of 55 minutes (48 minutes median, 27.2 minutes SD) in patients evaluated with early ultrasonography (<2 hours from presentation) and 92 minutes (80 minutes median, 72.4 minutes SD) in patients not undergoing early ultrasonographic examination (P<.005), which represented a 40% reduction in median door-to-operative-care time. The analysis yielded a mean reduction in charges of $18,456, with a median difference of $10,875. These differences were maintained in linear regression models controlling for injury severity and specific diagnoses. The length-of-stay analysis revealed a 3.5-day mean, 2.2-day median reduction in hospitalization length, which was not significant in the regression models.

These data facilitated the development of the SOAP-1 study, a randomized, controlled clinical trial to assess the effects of PLUS on the time to definitive care of patients with suspected torso trauma presenting to the EDs of 2 Level I trauma centers. Secondarily, diagnostic test use, length of stay, complication rates, and hospital charges were assessed to draw inferences about clinical and societal effectiveness and lay the groundwork for hypothesis-generating of future research, including a formal cost-effectiveness analysis.

Section snippets

Study Design

The study was a randomized, concealed, and controlled clinical trial. Patients enrolled were randomized to the PLUS (study) or control arms in blocks of 50 and stratified by center. Enrolled patients were randomized using a standard computer randomization program. The data sheets were coded and sealed in opaque envelopes. After screening, consenting, and enrollment, the subjects’ data collection envelopes were opened, revealing group assignment. Neither the treating physicians nor the patients

Characteristics of Study Subjects

Five hundred twenty-five patients were screened on arrival to the 2 EDs during the 6-month trial period in 2002 to 2003 (Figure 1). Four hundred forty-four (85%) patients met eligibility criteria. Eighty-one (18%) patients went directly to the operating suite, mostly (93%) because of penetrating wounds. One hundred eighty-two (41%) patients were not enrolled, because of lack of consent (136) or attending physician’s refusal to randomize (46). Two hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled and

Limitations

There were numerous limitations to our trial. First, the physicians treating the study subjects were not blinded to group assignment; they were required to integrate PLUS findings into the clinical decisionmaking process, which may have introduced a bias toward more rapid provision of care in the intervention group.

Second, 41% of eligible patients were not enrolled in the trial, because of lack of consent or attending refusal. The limited data available from the respective institutional trauma

Discussion

The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess the effect of PLUS for trauma on time from ED arrival to transfer to definitive care for patients suspected of having torso trauma. We found that PLUS resulted in a clinically relevant reduction in time to definitive care for patients with torso trauma.

Additionally, PLUS-evaluated patients underwent less CT, spent fewer days in the hospital, had fewer complications, and had substantially lower total charges for care. These

References (36)

  • G. Kane et al.

    Impact of the Los Angeles County trauma system on the survival of seriously injured patients

    J Trauma

    (1992)
  • J.R. Clarke et al.

    Time to laparotomy for intra-abdominal bleeding from the trauma does affect survival for delays up to 90 minutes

    J Trauma

    (2002)
  • S.W. Branney et al.

    Ultrasound based key clinical pathway reduces the use of hospital resources for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma

    J Trauma

    (1997)
  • G.S. Rozycki et al.

    Ultrasoundwhat every trauma surgeon should know

    J Trauma

    (1996)
  • D. Jehle et al.

    Ultrasound for the detection of intraperitoneal fluidthe role of Trendelenburg positioning

    Acad Emerg Med

    (1995)
  • K.L. McKenney et al.

    Sonography as the primary screening techniqe for blunt abdominal traumaexperience with 899 patients

    AJR

    (1998)
  • L. Fernandez et al.

    Ultrasound in blunt abdominal trauma

    J Trauma

    (1997)
  • Cited by (302)

    • Lung, Pleura, and Diaphragm Point-of-Care Ultrasound

      2024, Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI
    • Pro: Does Every Anesthesiologist Need to Learn Point-of-Care Ultrasound?

      2023, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Supervising editor: David T. Overton, MD, MBA

    Author contributions: LAM, WMB, and CAM conceived the study and designed the trial. LAM and CAM supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. EL, MGM, and PL undertook recruitment of participating centers and patients and managed the data, including quality control. WMB provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. LAM drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. LAM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

    Funding and support: All funding was intramural from New York Methodist Hospital Research Committee.

    Publication dates: Available online May 2, 2006.

    View full text