BACKGROUND: Ultrasound examination of trauma patients is increasingly performed in prehospital services. It is unclear if prehospital sonographic assessments change patient management: providing prehospital diagnosis and treatment, determining choice of destination hospital, or treatment at the receiving hospital.
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to assess and grade the evidence that specifically examines whether prehospital ultrasound (PHUS) of the thorax and/or abdomen changes management of the trauma patient.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of trauma patients who had an ultrasound of the thorax or abdomen performed in the prehospital setting. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science (CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Methodological quality was checked and risk of bias analysis performed, a level of evidence grade was assigned, and descriptive data analysis performed.
RESULTS: 992 unique citations were identified, which included eight studies that met inclusion criteria with a total of 925 patients. There are no reports of randomised controlled trials. Heterogeneity exists between the included studies which ranged from a case series to retrospective and prospective non-randomised observational studies. Three studies achieved a 2+ Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Networks grade for quality of evidence and the remainder demonstrated a high risk of bias. The three best studies each provided examples of prehospital ultrasound positively changing patient management.
CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence that supports prehospital physician use of ultrasound for trauma patients. For some patients, management was changed based on the results of the PHUS. The benefit of ultrasound use in non-physician services is unclear.
Ultrasound (US) has been used for in-hospital evaluation of the trauma victim for many years. The outcome in severely injured patients remains heavily influenced by initial life support and early care, as time plays a major role. Development of handheld, battery-powered, low-weight US machines has created the possibility of bringing US to the prehospital setting, thus gaining a potential for early diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study was to systematically search the literature for evidence that prehospital US of the abdomen or thorax increases survival of trauma patients. The data regarding the use of US in the prehospital setting is sparse, often of low quality and describing a broad variety of patients and clinical challenges. Therefore, from an evidence point of view it is not possible to answer the objectives in this review. In the prehospital setting, rapid assessment plays an important role, as initial life support and early surgical care influences the outcome of the severely injured patient. Time is especially crucial in blunt abdominal trauma and penetrating truncal injuries. Several studies in this review showed that prehospital US is feasible and that the procedure is highly reliable in detection of haemoperitoneum or haemopericardium compared with the low accuracy of physical examination and haemodynamic measurements. An early diagnosis will provide the prehospital physician with the knowledge to prioritize the relevant initial treatment and to choose the closest appropriate hospital and transportation form. There is currently no evidence in the literature that prehospital US of the abdomen or thorax improves treatment of trauma patients.
Ultrasound examination of trauma patients is increasingly performed in prehospital services. It is unclear if prehospital sonographic assessments change patient management: providing prehospital diagnosis and treatment, determining choice of destination hospital, or treatment at the receiving hospital.
OBJECTIVE:
This review aims to assess and grade the evidence that specifically examines whether prehospital ultrasound (PHUS) of the thorax and/or abdomen changes management of the trauma patient.
METHODS:
A systematic review was conducted of trauma patients who had an ultrasound of the thorax or abdomen performed in the prehospital setting. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science (CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Methodological quality was checked and risk of bias analysis performed, a level of evidence grade was assigned, and descriptive data analysis performed.
RESULTS:
992 unique citations were identified, which included eight studies that met inclusion criteria with a total of 925 patients. There are no reports of randomised controlled trials. Heterogeneity exists between the included studies which ranged from a case series to retrospective and prospective non-randomised observational studies. Three studies achieved a 2+ Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Networks grade for quality of evidence and the remainder demonstrated a high risk of bias. The three best studies each provided examples of prehospital ultrasound positively changing patient management.
CONCLUSION:
There is moderate evidence that supports prehospital physician use of ultrasound for trauma patients. For some patients, management was changed based on the results of the PHUS. The benefit of ultrasound use in non-physician services is unclear.
