摘要
目的 探讨动态扩展创伤超声重点评估（D-EFAST）在重症医学科（ICU）多发伤患者中的诊断价值.方法 采用前瞻性临床研究方法,选择2014年9月1日至2016 年12月31日安徽省立医院ICU收治的多发伤患者80例.先对患者进行扩展创伤超声重点评估（E-FAST）检查,结果提示阳性者立即进行CT检查或手术探查以明确诊断;如无异常,则每日进行E-FAST检查,连续7 d（定义为D-EFAST）,结果提示阳性者立即进行CT检查或手术探查以明确诊断.以临床明确诊断为＂金标准＂,计算E-FAST、D-EFAST检查对气胸、胸腔积液、脾脏损伤、肾脏损伤、肝脏损伤、胃肠道损伤、心包积液、膀胱破裂、胰腺损伤的诊断符合率及其敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、准确率和漏诊率,并进行比较.结果 80例患者中因死亡、放弃治疗等原因剔除4例,最终76例患者纳入分析.E-FAST 检查技术对气胸、胸腔积液、脾脏损伤、肝脏损伤、肾脏损伤、胃肠道损伤、心包积液、膀胱破裂、胰腺损伤诊断的总体敏感度为75.9%（66/87）,特异度为98.3%（587/597）,阳性预测值为86.8%（66/76）,阴性预测值为96.5%（587/608）,准确率为95.5%（653/684）,漏诊率为24.1% （21/87）.多发伤患者迟发性损害大多发生在伤后2~7 d,发生率为4.8%（33/684）;D-EFAST诊断多发伤患者迟发性损害的敏感度为98.3%（118/120）,特异度为99.8%（563/564）,阳性预测值为99.2%（118/119）,阴性预测值为99.6%（563/565）,准确率为99.6%（681/684）,漏诊率为1.7%（2/120）.以临床明确诊断为＂金标准＂,D-EFAST检查对多发伤患者器官损伤的诊断符合率为98.3%（118/120）,明显高于E-FAST的75.9%（66/87）,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,提示D-EFAST在多发伤患者器官损伤检查方面优于E-FAST.结论 尽管E-FAST技术可以快速判断多发伤患者的病情,为危急重症患者的初步诊治赢取时间,但多发伤患者�
Objective To investigate the diagnostic value of dynamic-extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma （D-EFAST） in patients with multiple trauma in intensive care unit （ICU）. Methods A prospective clinical study was conducted. Eighty patients with multiple trauma admitted to ICU of Anhui Provincial Hospital from September 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2016 were enrolled. Extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma （E-FAST） check was conducted at first, for those who had positive findings diagnosis was confirmed by immediately CT examination or surgical exploration. If it was negative, the patients received E-FAST every morning for 7 days （defined as D-EFAST）, for those with positive findings, immediately CT or surgery was performed to clarify the diagnosis. The final clinical diagnosis was used as the ＂gold standard＂ to calculate the diagnostic accordance rate of EFAST and D-EFAST examination technique for pneumothorax, pleural effusion, spleen injury, kidney damage, liver damage, gastrointestinal injury, pericardial effusion, bladder rupture, and pancreatic injury, as well as their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy rate, and missed diagnosis rate, and the difference between EFAST and D-EFAST was compared. Results There were 4 patients excluded because of death and abandoning treatment, and finally 76 patients were included in the study. The total sensitivity of E-FAST examination technique for pneumothorax, pleural effusion, spleen injury, liver damage, gastrointestinal injury, pericardial effusion, and bladder rupture was 75.9% （66/87）, and the specificity was 98.3% （587/597）, the positive predictive value was 86.8% （66/76）, and the negative predictive value was 96.5% （587/608）, the accuracy rate was 95.5% （653/684）, and the rate of missed diagnosis was 24.1% （21/87）. The most of the delayed injury in patients with multiple trauma occurred at 2-7 days after injury with incidence of 4.8% �
出处
《中华危重病急救医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2018年第1期61-66,共6页
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
基金
安徽省医药卫生科研课题（13zc044）
关键词
动态扩展创伤超声重点评估技术
多发伤
损害
迟发性
Dynamic-extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma
Muhiple injury
Delayedinjury.
