PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Christopher Partyka
AU  - Matthew Miller
AU  - Jimmy Bliss
AU  - Brian Burns
AU  - Andrew Coggins
AU  - Michele Fiorentino
AU  - Pierre Goorkiz
TI  - An evaluation of the accuracy of prehospital eFAST in the assessment of polytrauma by a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service
AID  - 10.1101/2020.12.02.20242453
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.12.02.20242453
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.02.20242453.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.02.20242453.full
AB  - BACKGROUND While the accuracy of point of care ultrasound in trauma is well understood, there is limited reporting on the efficacy of prehospital ultrasound by helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS). In severe trauma, early diagnosis and communication of life-threatening injuries has the potential to facilitate timely care. This HEMS ultrasound registry evaluation set out to report the accuracy of the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) exam.METHODS Retrospective review of trauma patients who received a prehospital eFAST by GSA-HEMS clinicians between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017. Clinician interpretations of these scans were compared to immediate in-hospital CT imaging or operating room reports as the gold-standard reference. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of eFAST for intraperitoneal free fluid compared to hospital CT scan. Secondary outcomes included accuracy of eFAST for pneumothorax, haemothorax and pericardial fluid, comparison of clinician seniority and whether prehospital interventions were supported by eFAST results.RESULTS We included 896 patients who underwent eFAST by prehospital clinicians. 411 patients had adequate in-hospital data available for comparison. For the primary outcome of IPFF, eFAST had a sensitivity of 25% [95% CI 16-36%] and specificity of 96% [95% CI 93-98%]. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for pneumothorax (38% and 96% respectively), haemothorax (17% and 97% respectively) and pericardial effusion (17% and 100% respectively). Fifty percent of patients had thoracostomies supported by lung US whilst 24% of patients who received a prehospital blood transfusion had an eFAST negative for haemorrhage.CONCLUSION This study shows that prehospital eFAST is a reliable tool for ruling in the diagnoses of intraperitoneal free fluid, pneumothorax, haemothorax and pericardial effusion and as expected less reliable than CT imaging for these injuries.What is already known about this subject?Extended Focused Abdominal Sonography in Trauma (eFAST) is widely used in an in hospital setting for the assessment of blunt and penetrating injury.Point of care sonography in the prehospital setting has become feasible due to advances in technology, widespread physician training and availability of scanning devices.What does this study add?Our study demonstrates that prehospital eFAST is highly specific for the diagnosis of significant abdominal haemorrhage.Prehospital eFAST is less accurate for other injuries including haemothorax and pneumothorax. The explanation for this finding is unclear, but may be associated with scanning earlier in the clinical course, diminishing sensitivity, environmental factors or human factors.Further studies are required to understand the optimal role of point of care ultrasound in the prehospital setting.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialACTRN12618001973202Funding StatementNo external funding received to undertake this research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:SESLHD Human Research Ethics Committee NSW Health New South Wales, Australia (LNR/18/POWH/262)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDeidentified summary data available if prior ethics approval sought.