The accuracy of focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) in blunt trauma patients: Experience of an Australian major trauma service
Article Outline
Summary
Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) is a method for detecting haemoperitonem in trauma patients on initial assessment in the Emergency Department. The aim of this paper is to present an Australian trauma centre's experience with FAST as a tool to screen for intraabdominal free fluid in patient's sustaining blunt truncal trauma.
Method
Over a 63-month period, FAST scans were prospectively studied and compared with findings from a gold-standard investigation, either computed tomography (CT) or laparotomy.
Results
463 FAST results were collected prospectively from 463 patients. 53 scans were excluded due to lack of a corresponding confirmatory gold-standard test. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for FAST in detecting free fluid were 78%, 97%, 91%, 93%, respectively. Analysis of the credentialed operators demonstrated an improvement in accuracy (sensitivity 80%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 94%). These findings are comparable with documented international experience.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that the use of non-radiologist performed FAST in the detection of free fluid is safe and accurate within an Australian Trauma Centre.
Keywords: Ultrasound, FAST, Trauma, Emergency, Free fluid, Haemoperitoneum
Introduction
Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) has been used, world-wide, for the detection of haemoperitoneum/free fluid in the trauma patient's initial workup. The accuracy of FAST performed by non-radiologists has been well documented in the published literature.
Although these focused examinations are becoming an accepted practice in many trauma centres, the published experience utilising FAST within Australasia is limited.35, 18
This report examines an Australasian institution's experience with FAST performed by non-radiologists in the Emergency Department.
Method
The study site is a 600 bed tertiary referral teaching hospital, which is designated as the Major Trauma Service for a population of approximately 800,000 people.
Between September 1999 and December 2004, FAST were prospectively analysed for the evaluation of patients with potential truncal injuries. Any trauma patient who came through the emergency department underwent a FAST study if the appropriate personnel were available. Those patients, who did not have the ultrasound results confirmed by either computed tomographic scanning (CT-scan) or laparotomy, were excluded from the study.
Information was collected on a pre-determined data sheet.
Haemodynamic instability was defined as a systolic blood pressure
<
90
mmHg and/or a persistent tachycardia
>
120 beats per minute, unresponsive to fluid administration as per ATLS guidelines.
The study was approved by the hospital's Research and Ethics Committee.
Personnel and training
All ultrasound scans were performed in the Emergency Department by Emergency Medicine Consultants, Emergency Medicine Registrars or Surgical Registrars. A total of 17 sonographers (seven emergency consultants, eight emergency registrars and two surgical registrars) performed the FAST examinations during the study period. All physicians completed an ultrasound training course, which included a minimum 8
h of didactic teaching, videotapes, and practical sessions. Two emergency consultants were already fully credentialed as per the Australasian Trauma Society (ATS)/Australasian College of Emergency Medicine (ACEM) standards.
Technique
The ultrasound examinations were performed with a B-K Medical Panther (Scan Medics, Chatswood NSW Australia, distributor for B-K Medical, Herlev Denmark) ultrasound system located within the resuscitation area. It was equipped with a 3.5–5.0
MHz curvilinear transducer, a printer and a video recorder.
For FAST, the standard four areas were examined for the presence of free intraperitoneal fluid, namely, Morrison's pouch, the splenorenal recess, the pelvis and the pericardial area.28, 29 No attempt was made to delineate solid organ injury. The ultrasonographic appearances for free fluid have been well described in the literature.
Confirmatory studies
All included studies were compared with the radiologist's formal CT scan report, or the surgeon's operative notes. At the study institution, there was no quantitative measurement of free fluid seen on CT scans.
Results
A total of 463 FAST examinations were carried out on 463 patients. All of the patients sustained blunt truncal trauma. About 53 scans were excluded due to lack of a corresponding gold-standard investigation. Average age was 37.1
±
23 years old. Only five patients were under the age of 16. 71% were males and 29% females. The results of the FAST examinations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Results of FAST examinations
| True positive | 78 |
| False negative | 22 |
| True negative | 302 |
| False positive | 8 |
| Total scans | 410 |
| Sensitivity | 78% (95% CI: 70–86) |
| Specificity | 97% (95% CI: 96–99) |
| Positive predictive value | 91% (95%CI: 85–94) |
| Negative predictive value | 93% (95%CI: 90–96) |
| Accuracy | 93% (95% CI: 90–96) |
| Error | 7% (95% CI: 4–10) |
Further analysis was carried out on those scans performed by the two credentialed physicians, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Results of FAST examinations by credentialed physicians (n
=
2)
| True positive | 33 |
| False negative | 8 |
| True negative | 116 |
| False positive | 0 |
| Total scans | 157 |
| Sensitivity | 80% (95% CI: 73–88) |
| Specificity | 100% |
| Positive predictive value | 100% |
| Negative predictive value | 94% (95% CI: 91–96) |
| Accuracy | 95% (95% CI: 93–97) |
| Error | 5% (95% CI: 3–7) |
All of the false negative examinations were confirmed by CT scan. Trace free fluid, predominantly in the pelvis, was the main finding on CT scans of those patients with false negative FAST examinations. Three patients with negative FAST examinations were found to have a low grade splenic laceration with free fluid, but none required a laparotomy.
30 patients had their positive ultrasound findings confirmed by laparotomy. Of these 30, 18 patients were haemodynamically unstable and taken directly from the resuscitation room to the operating theatre. The mechanism and operative findings on these unstable patients are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Operative findings of haemodynamically unstable patients with a positive FAST
| Age | Sex | Mechanism | Operative findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29 | Male | MVC | Grade II splenic injury |
| 46 | Male | Boating | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 24 | Male | Explosion | Grade V splenic injury |
| 30 | Male | Pedestrian | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 41 | Female | MVC | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 49 | Male | MBC | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 25 | Male | MBC | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 22 | Male | MVC | Small bowel and sigmoid mesenteric tear |
| 28 | Male | MVC | Grade III liver injury, pancreatic contusion |
| 62 | Male | Crush | Right hepatic artery transection, common bile duct transection |
| 23 | Male | MVC | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 39 | Male | MVC | Diaphragm laceration |
| 28 | Male | MBC | Grade III liver injury, ruptured duodenum, pancreas laceration |
| 84 | Female | MVC | Grade III splenic injury, ruptured diaphragm, ruptured left ventricle |
| 29 | Male | MVC | Grade III liver injury, small bowel perforation |
| 30 | Male | MVC | Grade IV splenic injury |
| 23 | Male | MBC | Small bowel mesenteric tear |
| 49 | Male | Fall | Small bowel mesenteric tear |
No laparotomies were performed for the false positive examinations.
Discussion
This study represents the largest series to date of ultrasound examinations performed by non-radiologists for trauma in Australasia.
When compared to those studies which examine non-radiologist performed ultrasounds, the sensitivity and specificity in our series (sens 78%, spec 97%) compares favourably (sens 69–98%, spec 85–99%).35, 26, 27, 28, 29, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 34, 21, 12, 8, 9, 32, 23
The values are also comparable to those studies which utilise sonographer/radiology resident/radiologist performed/interpreted scans (sens 69–93%, spec 98–100%).7, 22, 14, 11, 25
It is very important to note that definitions vary somewhat in the existing literature. All papers define a positive ultrasound result, be it true or false, and a false negative result, by means of a confirmatory gold-standard investigation, namely CT, Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage (DPL) or laparotomy. However, the vast majority of studies define those patients with a negative FAST and a benign course of clinical observation, as a true negative examination. Some studies do not specify exactly how many true negative examinations were determined by clinical observation, while those which do, have between 34% and 96% of their total true negative examinations confirmed by clinical observation. This has been identified as a weakness by many authors, given the lack of long-term follow-up.
We chose only to include those examinations which had a corresponding gold-standard investigation, as we believe this to be a more accurate assessment of FAST. An international consensus conference on FAST also agreed that in the pure statistical sense, all true negatives should be confirmed by a standard test, however it may be impractical to confirm all negative results with an additional study.30 One can only speculate as to how many patients with a negative FAST and negative clinical observation period would have had intraperitoneal free fluid if a gold-standard confirmatory test been carried out. Thus, these studies involving clinical observation may be not be a strictly accurate assessment of FAST, in the true methodological sense. When looking at studies which include only those examinations with a confirmatory gold-standard investigation, the range of sensitivities and specificities are much narrower (sens 70–81%, spec 97–98%).35, 18, 8, 9
The false negative examinations in our series were largely clinically insignificant, as all but three examinations demonstrated only a trace of free fluid in the pelvis on CT scanning, with no subsequent laparotomy required. In this study, the subdiaphragmatic space above the spleen was not imaged on a regular basis, and thus was probably a significant contributory factor in the false negative examinations with splenic injuries. Also, there is the possibility that fluid may have accumulated during the time between the initial ultrasound examination and the subsequent CT scan. There does appear to be a minimal amount of free fluid required for ultrasound detection, however, the quantitative amount has not been accurately described in the literature. Two North American studies have used a model infusing fluid into trauma patients via a DPL catheter. The mean amount of fluid able to be detected was 619 and 668
ml.10, 1
These studies have limitations as they only examined a single area of the abdomen, namely Morrison's pouch. Lentz and McKenney have made two comments relevant to these studies. Firstly, the models reflect the amount of instilled fluid required to overflow from the pelvis into Morrison's pouch, not the minimal detectable amount of fluid. Secondly, during a trauma ultrasound examination, multiple areas must be scanned, since the flow of intraperitoneal fluid is determined by peritoneal anatomic compartmentalisation, and that various factors will influence where fluid may accumulate including gravity, changes in intra-abdominal pressure and the injured organ of origin.20
In the Branney study, the minimal volume detectable was 225
ml.10 Further support for a minimal ultrasound detectable amount of fluid is evidenced in a series by Miller et al., where 20 out of 22 false negative FAST studies had ≤300
ml of fluid seen on CT scanning.24
With the knowledge that small amounts of free fluid may be undetectable by ultrasound, it has been recommended that, at a minimum, a negative FAST result in a haemodynamically stable patient be followed by a period of observation and at least one follow-up FAST examination.30 Currently there is minimal quantitative evidence to support the use of repeat FAST examinations.6 However, this is an area which requires further investigation.
It has been suggested that standard credentialing criteria should be set forth by a nationally recognised organisation.30 Within Australasia, the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian Trauma Society (ATS) have published credentialing policies. Both specify that an ultrasound workshop is essential, however only the ATS guidelines specify a minimum of 16 workshop hours. Both organisations require a minimum of 25 proctored scans with at least five positive scans.4, 5
Recommendations from other countries are more variable. In Germany, ultrasound use is incorporated into surgical residency training. The requirements are 15
h in theory and 15
h in practice, with a minimum of 400 examinations under supervision.15 In the USA, most published guidelines by national organisations, such as the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine refer to broader ultrasound examinations and are therefore not applicable to FAST credentialing alone.2, 3 Otherwise, training and credentialing appears to be institute specific.
Several studies have attempted to elucidate the learning curve involved with FAST examinations. Thomas et al. demonstrated that the accuracy of ultrasound examinations plateaued after an average of 50 examinations per trauma fellow.33 Their results were consistent with the published literature (sens 81%, spec 99%), after a single 8
h trauma ultrasound course and a minimum of 50 proctored examinations. Gracias et al. hypothesised that more experienced providers would perform FAST with greater accuracy, by utilising peritoneal dialysis patients as models for injured patients with free fluid. They concluded that the learning curve for FAST starts to flatten out at 30–100 examinations.13
The prevalence of free fluid in our series was 24% with a pooled error rate of 7%. This is consistent with the arbitrary error rate of 8% suggested by Shackford et al.31 Their conclusion for reasonable credentialing criteria was a didactic course of 4
h and a minimum of 30 examinations to determine the error rate. Jones et al. similarly described a pooled error rate of 10% (prevalence 22%) in their series assessing the ACEM/ATS credentialing criteria.18 When looking at the results from the two prior credentialed physicians in our series, the ACEM/ATS criteria appear to be acceptable to ensure accurate credentialing.
Limitations
This study was based on a convenience sample, and as such may have some bias. No comment could be made on an accurate time required for FAST, as the time data sheet was often incomplete.
Our findings are not applicable in children or penetrating trauma, as there were no cases of penetrating trauma, and only 5 patients under 16 included in the study.
Conclusion and future directions
This study has demonstrated that the use of ultrasound in assessing blunt trauma patients by non-radiologists within an Australian trauma centre, is safe and accurate.
Further studies are needed to determine cost-benefit within Australasia. In addition, the role of repeat ultrasound examinations needs to be further investigated.
National training bodies, such as the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, need to consider the implementation of FAST into the trainee curriculum. Hospitals utilising a FAST service must introduce clear credentialing procedures for the appropriate staff.
References
- Ultrasound for the detection of intraperitoneal fluid: the role of trendelenberg positioning. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17:117–120
- . Emergency ultrasound guidelines 2001. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:470–481
- American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Official statement: training guidelines for physicians who evaluate and interpret diagnostic ultrasound examinations; 1997.
- Australasian College for Emergency Medicine. Policy document: credentialing for ED ultrasonography; 2000. URL: http://www.acem.org.au/open/documents/ultrasonography.htm.
- Australasian Trauma Society. Australasian Trauma Society position on credentialing for trauma ultrasound for trauma specialists; 1998. URL: http://www.atsoc.com.au/policy.htm.
- Secondary ultrasound examination increases the sensitivity of the FAST exam in blunt trauma. J Trauma. 2004;57:934–938
- Abdominal ultrasound as a reliable indicator for conclusive laparotomy in blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1993;34:27–31
- A prospective study of emergent abdominal sonography after blunt trauma. J Trauma. 1995;39:325–330
- Emergent abdominal sonography as a screening test in a new diagnostic algorithm for blunt trauma. J Trauma. 1996;40:867–874
- Quantitative sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting free intraperitoneal fluid. J Trauma. 1995;39:375–380
- 2576 ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 2001;50:108–112
- The role of ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma: results in 250 consecutive cases. J Trauma. 1994;36:178–181
- Defining the learning curve for the focused abdominal sonogram for trauma (FAST) examination: implications for credentialing. Am Surg. 2001;67:364–368
- A prospective evaluation of abdominal ultrasound in blunt trauma: is it useful. J Trauma. 1996;40:875–883
- Blunt abdominal trauma in cases of multiple trauma evaluated by ultrasonography: a prospective analysis of 291 patients. J Trauma. 1992;32:452–458
- Emergency physician use of ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:931–937
- . Emergency department ultrasound in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. Am J Emerg Med. 1993;11:342–346
- Emergency ultrasound credentialing for focussed assessment sonography in trauma and abdominal aortic aneurysm: a practical approach for Australasia. Emerg Med. 2003;15:54–62
- Sonographic examination of abdominal trauma by senior surgical residents. Am Surg. 1997;63:669–674
- . Letter to the editor. J Trauma. 1996;40:1052–1053
- . Prospective comparison of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, computer tomographic scanning and ultrasonography for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1993;35:267–270
- 1000 consecutive ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1996;40:607–610
- Can surgeons evaluate emergency ultrasound scans for blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1998;44:649–653
- . Not so fast. J Trauma. 2003;54:52–60
- Diagnostic performance of trauma US in identifying abdominal or pelvic free fluid and serious abdominal or pelvic injury. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:128–136
- Ultrasound in blunt abdominal and thoracic trauma. J Trauma. 1993;34:488–495
- Surgeon-performed ultrasound for the assessment of truncal injuries: lessons learned from 1540 patients. Ann Surg. 1998;228:557–567
- Prospective evaluation of surgeon's use of ultrasound in the evaluation of trauma patients. J Trauma. 1993;34:516–527
- A prospective study of surgeon-performed ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality for injured patient assessment. J Trauma. 1995;39:492–500
- Focussed assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST): results from an international consensus conference. J Trauma. 1999;46:466–472
- Focused abdominal sonogram for trauma: the learning curve of nonradiologist clinicians in detecting hemoperitoneum. J Trauma. 1999;46:553–564
- Ultrasound evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma: program implementation, initial experience, and learning curve. J Trauma. 1997;42:384–388
- Ultrasound evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma: program implementation, initial experience, and learning curve. J Trauma. 1997;42:384–390
- Sonography in blunt abdominal trauma: a preliminary progress report. J Trauma. 1992;33:39–44
- Focussed assessment with sonography for trauma patients by clinicians: initial experience and results. Emerg Med. 2003;15:42–48
PII: S0020-1383(06)00130-6
doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.03.004
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
