1 / 9

Evidence in the ED C-spine Rules

Evidence in the ED C-spine Rules. Angela M. Mills, MD September 3, 2002. NEXUS 5 Criteria. No midline cervical tenderness No focal neurologic deficit Normal level of alertness No intoxication No painful, distracting injury. Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99. NEXUS trial.

bernad
Download Presentation

Evidence in the ED C-spine Rules

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evidence in the EDC-spine Rules Angela M. Mills, MD September 3, 2002

  2. NEXUS 5 Criteria • No midline cervical tenderness • No focal neurologic deficit • Normal level of alertness • No intoxication • No painful, distracting injury Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  3. NEXUS trial • Prospective, observational study at 21 centers • 34,069 patients with blunt trauma who underwent radiography of cervical spine • Low probability of c-spine injury if patients met all 5 clinical criteria and were clinically stable Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  4. Results • 818 (2.4%) radiographically documented cervical-spine injuries • Missed 8 of 818 injuries • Only 2 of 8 missed met criteria for clinically significant injury Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  5. Injuries which require no specific treatment Injuries which would result in no harm if not identified Spinous-process fracture Simple wedge-compression fx w/o loss of 25% or more of height Isolated avulsion w/o lig injury End-plate fracture Osteophyte fx, not including corner fx or teardrop fx Injury to trabecular bone Transverse-process fracture Not clinically significant injuries Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  6. Results • Sensitivity 99.0 % • Negative Predictive Value 99.8 % • Specificity 12.9 % • Positive Predictive Value 2.7 % All Patients Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  7. Results • Sensitivity 99.6 % • Negative Predictive Value 99.9 % • Specificity 12.9 % • Positive Predictive Value 1.9 % Patients with clinically significant injuries Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  8. NEXUS trial • Able to identify patients, with high degree of confidence, with blunt trauma with extremely low probability of injury to cervical spine • Limited number of criteria easy to remember • Overall miss rate less than 1 in 4,000 patients • Sensitivity approaches 100% for clinically important injuries Hoffman: NEJM, Vol 343(2). July 13, 2000. 94-99

  9. HUP ism • Large study that shows that what most are people were already doing was correct • A reasonable approach to C-spine radiography

More Related