Premium
La Utilidad de la Tomografía Computarizada de Cráneo en Urgencias en los Pacientes sin Traumatismo
Author(s) -
Narayanan Vignesh,
Keniston Angela,
Albert Richard K.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01437.x
Subject(s) - medicine , emergency department , psychological intervention , odds ratio , confidence interval , radiology , trauma center , lumbar , computed tomography , weakness , lumbar puncture , retrospective cohort study , pediatrics , surgery , psychiatry , cerebrospinal fluid
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19: 1055–1060 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine, in patients admitted to the hospital from the emergency department (ED) without evidence of trauma, 1) the prevalence of clinically important abnormalities on cranial computed tomography (CCT) and 2) the frequency of emergent therapeutic interventions required because of these abnormalities. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients from 2007 between the ages of 18 and 89 years who had CCT as part of their ED evaluations prior to hospitalization. Patients with any indication of trauma were excluded, as were those who had a lumbar puncture (LP). Chief complaint, results of the ED neurologic examination, tomogram findings, and whether patients had emergent interventions were recorded. Patients presenting with altered mental status (AMS) were analyzed separately. Results: Of the 766 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 83 (11%) had focal neurologic findings, and 61 (8%) had clinically important abnormalities on computed tomography. Emergent interventions occurred in only 12 (1.6%), 11 (92%) of whom had focal neurologic findings. In the subgroup of 287 patients with AMS as their presenting problem, 14 (4.9%) had focal findings, six (2%) had clinically important abnormalities on tomography, and only two (0.7%) required emergent interventions, both of whom had focal findings. Patients presenting with AMS were less likely to have positive findings on tomography (odds ratio [OR] = 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07 to 0.39). Patients presenting with motor weakness or speech abnormalities, or who were unresponsive, were more likely to have positive findings on tomography (OR = 4.7, 95% CI = 2.6 to 8.6; OR = 4.4, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.7; and OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.6 to 7.1, respectively). Conclusions: Of patients without evidence of trauma who receive CCT in the ED, the prevalence of focal neurologic findings and clinically important abnormalities on tomography is low, the need for emergent intervention is very low, and the large majority of patients requiring emergent intervention have focal findings. The yield of CCT was lower for patients presenting with AMS, and higher for patients presenting with motor weakness or speech abnormalities, and for those who were unresponsive.