Posts tagged #ct cspine

Elderly Fallers

Written by: Nick Wleklinski, MD (NUEM ‘22) Edited by: Kumar Gandhi, MD, MPH (NUEM '20) Expert Commentary by: Scott Dresden, MD, MS

Written by: Nick Wleklinski, MD (NUEM ‘22) Edited by: Kumar Gandhi, MD, MPH (NUEM '20) Expert Commentary by: Scott Dresden, MD, MS


Oh How the Older Adults Fall

Introduction:

Older adults (>65yrs old) fall. In 2006, older adult patients who fell made up approximately 2.1 million of ED visits totaling $6.1 billion in health care dollars [1]. Falls are the most common cause of unintentional injury for older folks, accounting for 13% of all ED visits from 2008-2010 [2]. These numbers are only increasing as our population ages and it is predicted to double by 2030 [3]. The injuries incurred wildly vary, but these patients tend to fall into two buckets: Major injury/organic etiology à admit vs. simple mechanical fall à Discharge.

Common injuries requiring hospitalization:

Falls resulting in major injury carry significant morbidity and mortality. Hip fractures lead to deterioration in function and carry ~27% mortality at 1 year [4]. Head injuries account for a significant amount of fall-related deaths, making CT brain imagining imperative in most fall patients. Add a CT C-spine as these injuries are more common in the older adults, the Canadian and Nexus C-spine rules don’t work well for these patients [5]. Additionally, rib fractures are common and require significant analgesia to prevent splinting and subsequent complications. Be sure to consider blunt cardiac injury and pulmonary contusion! Given that falls are a frequent cause of trauma in older adult patients, it is important to keep the effects of aging in mind when running the ABC’s (Table 1) [6].

Table 1: Further considerations for ABC’s in older adult trauma patients.

Table 1: Further considerations for ABC’s in older adult trauma patients.

The tougher scenario: Those without any injuries:

Patients without any major injuries deserve more thought than simply ruling out organic etiologies (i.e. CVA, ACS, arrythmia, etc.) and major trauma. These patients are at high risk for subsequent falls and may even have underlying physiologic injuries. Using the term “mechanical fall” is risky as it can anchor providers into comfort. Therefore, having a more regimented approach can help better risk stratify these patients.

The fall itself:

  • Where did it happen?

    • Those in nursing homes/institutional setting fall more frequently than those in the community (60% vs ~33%, respectively) [7]

    • Falls at home should trigger need for home safety evaluation

  • Have you fallen before?

    • History tends to repeat itself, with nearly 50% of fallers falling again within 1 year [8]

  • Witnessed vs Unwitnessed?

    • Collateral information can provide key details if a patient is a fall risk and requires further evaluation by physical therapy

  • How long where you on the ground? [9, 10]

Figure 1: Increased time on the ground leads to worsening fall anxiety and increased risk of rhabdomyolysis and subsequent kidney injury

Figure 1: Increased time on the ground leads to worsening fall anxiety and increased risk of rhabdomyolysis and subsequent kidney injury

Evaluating the patient:

  • Outside of the obvious (CVA, ACS, etc.), it is important to also consider other common etiologies:

    • Hypotension

    • Arrythmias

    • Infection (PNA, UTI, pressure ulcers)

    • Vestibular dysfunction (i.e. BPPV)

    • Anemia

      • Ask about melena as this is a commonly not investigated [11]

    • Delirium

    • Malignancy

  •  Medications: Polypharmacy is a known issue in older adults, but there are certain medications to take note of. Antidepressants and antipsychotics are associated with the highest risk of falls while diuretics and narcotics didn’t have as much of a risk (Table 2) [12]. Additionally, who manages the meds and how are they organized at home?

Table 2: Common medications associated with falls

Table 2: Common medications associated with falls

  • What is their baseline? This is the meat and potatoes of the evaluation and where future risk factors can be identified and addressed.

    • How steady do they feel on their feet?

    • Decreased cognition (Dementia, Alzheimer’s, etc.) incurs increase fall risk [13]

    • Do they have arthritis/chronic pain?

      • Can result in unsteady gait from favoring certain part of body, increasing risk

    • Timed Up and Go Test:

      • A great way to evaluate lower extremity strength and balance (figure 2)

    • Visual and auditory impairment: Visual acuity should be addressed. Look at their eyewear as multifocal lenses increase fall risk [14].

    • Feet: check for neuropathy and ask about footwear.

    • Assist devices used for ambulation? Do they use these devices regularly and correctly?

    • Delirium screening

      • The Confusion Assessment Method is used in triage [15]

Figure 2: The Timed Up and Go Test.

Figure 2: The Timed Up and Go Test.

Things we can do:

Although continuity is not generally part of the EM specialty, we can help address future fall risk for these patients who we discharge after their fall evaluation. Recommending supplements such as vitamin D and calcium are helpful for reducing risk for fall-related injuries [7]. Balance training through outpatient physical therapy referrals can further help reduce fall risk. Follow up is imperative and these patients should see their PMD or a geriatrician soon after their discharge from the ER to continue their fall evaluation.  

Conclusion:

While major trauma from falls is exciting and straight forward, it is important to give more thought to those older adult patients deemed to have a “mechanical fall”. Gathering information about the fall and determining the patient’s baseline can help stratify future risk. The incidence of falls is only going to increase as our population ages, so having a regimented approach to these patients is imperative.


Expert Commentary

As was expertly described, falls in older adults lead to significant morbidity and mortality.  Unfortunately, in the ED they are often dismissed as “mechanical,” the injuries are treated, but the causes are never identified. The term mechanical fall is ambiguous and unhelpful and should not be used in the ED. Some mean that the fall was not a result of seizure or syncope, but it is not a clear term.  Additionally, it does not help with prognosis. There are no differences in adverse events at 6 months between “mechanical” and non-mechanical faller. For a great discussion of the Myth of the Mechanical Fall see Shan Liu’s presentation at IGNITE presentation at SAEM18 (https://saem-ondemand.echo360.org/media-player.aspx/5/13/431/1608).

Even if injuries are minor, patients often do poorly. Between 36% and 50% of patients have an adverse event such as a recurrent fall, emergency department revisit, or death within 1 year after a fall, including 25% who die within 1 year. As the CDC likes to remind us, every 20 minutes someone dies from a fall (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi/index.html).

So what do we do with this medical problem that has a 25% 1-year mortality? As with many problems in geriatrics, falls are a sentinel event, and deserve a sentinel response. It is our job to prevent the next fall. The Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines provide a framework for a risk assessment after a fall. One might think that the cause of the fall is obvious (e.g. tripped over a crack in the sidewalk). However a thoughtful assessment begins by asking “if this patient was a health 20-year-old, would he or she have fallen? “ If the answer is no, then the assessment of the underlying cause of the fall should be more comprehensive and should include a thorough history of the fall and risk factors such as ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), appropriate footwear, and medications. Physical exam should include orthostatic blood pressure, a head to toe exam even for patients with seemingly isolated injuries, a neurologic exam with special attention to neuropathy and proximal motor strength, and a safety assessment. Patients should be able to rise from the bed or chair, turn, and steadily ambulate in the ED before considering discharge (not while the nurse is handing the patient his or her discharge paperwork). For patients who are unable to safely ambulate, consideration of an assist device such as a cane or walker should be given, physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) consultation, and possibly hospital admission.  All patients who are admitted after a fall should be admitted by PT and OT. Additionally, patients who fell should have home safety assessments which may be arranged through occupational therapy.

In addition to the GED guidelines, the CDC has developed the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries (STEADI) program. This program includes an algorithm for fall risk screening, assessment and intervention. For screening they recommend patients answer the Stay Independent screening (a 12 question tool), however if the patient is in the ED for a fall, this step can be omitted because the patient has already declared themselves as high risk for falls.  To evaluate gait, strength, and balance, the Timed Up & Go, 30-Second Chair Stand, or 4-Stage Balance Test are recommended. In addition, to the assessments mentioned previously (medications, orthostatics), asking about potential hazards such as throw rugs or slippery floors, and a visual acuity check are advised. Once risk factors are identified they should be addressed through physical therapy, exercise of fall prevention programs, medication optimization, home safety evaluation, discussion with outpatient clinicians regarding orthostatic hypotension, referral to a podiatrist for proper footwear, recommending a vitamin D supplement. Finally, ensuring close and enduring followup is important. Consider a referral to a geriatrician if the patient doesn’t already see one.

Scott_Dresden-29.png

Scott Dresden, MD, MS

Associated Professor of Emergency Medicine

Director of Geriatric Emergency Department Innovations (GEDI)

Northwestern Memorial Hospital


How To Cite This Post:

[Peer-Reviewed, Web Publication] Wleklinski, N. Gandhi, G. (2020, Nov 23). Elderly Fallers. [NUEM Blog. Expert Commentary by Dresden, D]. Retrieved from http://www.nuemblog.com/blog/elderly-falls.


Other Posts You May Enjoy

References

  1. Owens, P.L., et al., Emergency Department Visits for Injurious Falls among the Elderly, 2006: Statistical Brief #80, in Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. 2006, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Rockville (MD).

  2. Sapiro, A.L., et al., Rapid recombination mapping for high-throughput genetic screens in Drosophila. G3 (Bethesda), 2013. 3(12): p. 2313-9.

  3. Foundation, C.f.D.C.a.P.a.T.M.C. The State of Aging and Health in America 2007. 2007  [cited 2019.

  4. Cenzer, I.S., et al., One-Year Mortality After Hip Fracture: Development and Validation of a Prognostic Index. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2016. 64(9): p. 1863-8.

  5. Goode, T., et al., Evaluation of cervical spine fracture in the elderly: can we trust our physical examination? Am Surg, 2014. 80(2): p. 182-4.

  6. Carpenter, C.R., et al., Major trauma in the older patient: Evolving trauma care beyond management of bumps and bruises. Emerg Med Australas, 2017. 29(4): p. 450-455.

  7. Nagaraj, G., et al., Avoiding anchoring bias by moving beyond 'mechanical falls' in geriatric emergency medicine. Emerg Med Australas, 2018. 30(6): p. 843-850.

  8. Liu, S.W., et al., Frequency of ED revisits and death among older adults after a fall. Am J Emerg Med, 2015. 33(8): p. 1012-8.

  9. Austin, N., et al., Fear of falling in older women: a longitudinal study of incidence, persistence, and predictors. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2007. 55(10): p. 1598-603.

  10. Deshpande, N., et al., Activity restriction induced by fear of falling and objective and subjective measures of physical function: a prospective cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2008. 56(4): p. 615-20.

  11. Tirrell, G., et al., Evaluation of older adult patients with falls in the emergency department: discordance with national guidelines. Acad Emerg Med, 2015. 22(4): p. 461-7.

  12. Woolcott, J.C., et al., Meta-analysis of the impact of 9 medication classes on falls in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med, 2009. 169(21): p. 1952-60.

  13. Muir, S.W., K. Gopaul, and M.M. Montero Odasso, The role of cognitive impairment in fall risk among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing, 2012. 41(3): p. 299-308.

  14. Lord, S.R., J. Dayhew, and A. Howland, Multifocal glasses impair edge-contrast sensitivity and depth perception and increase the risk of falls in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2002. 50(11): p. 1760-6.

  15. Han, J.H., et al., Diagnosing delirium in older emergency department patients: validity and reliability of the delirium triage screen and the brief confusion assessment method. Ann Emerg Med, 2013. 62(5): p. 457-465.

Posted on November 23, 2020 and filed under geriatrics.

Clearing C-Spine in Intoxicated Blunt Trauma Patients

Written by: Jason Chodakowski, MD (NUEM PGY-4) Edited by: Duncan Wilson, MD (NUEM ‘18) Expert commentary by: Matt Levine, MD

Written by: Jason Chodakowski, MD (NUEM PGY-4) Edited by: Duncan Wilson, MD (NUEM ‘18) Expert commentary by: Matt Levine, MD


Saturday night in the ED.  A 28 year old man presents after a low speed motor vehicle accident.  Police report that he was seen swerving in the road before rear ending a parked car at approximately 25 mph.  He presents to the ED without visible signs of trauma. His trauma exam reveals no cervical spine tenderness, but he is heavily intoxicated with a GCS of 13.  Head CT and cervical spine CT are negative and he is currently sleeping in the hallway, periodically waking up to remove his cervical collar. You have very low suspicion that he has a significant cervical spine injury, but you ask yourself, can I clear his cervical spine given his level of intoxication?

Evaluating C-Spine Injuries

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Practice Management Guidelines Committee recommends the following approach to the care of patients with suspected cervical spine injuries: [1]

  • In awake, alert patients with trauma without neurologic deficit or distracting injury who have no neck pain or tenderness with full range of motion of the cervical spine, imaging is not necessary and the cervical collar may be removed.

  • All other patients in whom cervical spine injury is suspected should have radiographic evaluation, preferably with cervical spine CT imaging.

    • In patients with negative CT imaging but persistent neck pain, the patient may have a cervical ligamentous injury.  Three treatment options exist:

      • Continue the cervical collar

      • Cervical collar may be removed after negative MRI

      • Cervical collar may be removed after negative and adequate flexion/extension plain films.

The Canadian C-Spine and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria are two widely used, prospectively validated decision rules that can be used by clinicians to clinically rule out clinically significant cervical spine injury, thereby obviating the need for imaging.

Canadian C-Spine criteria [10]: If the patient has all of the below, then radiography is not necessary:

  1. No High Risk Factors: Age >/=65; Dangerous Mechanism, paresthesias in extremities

  2. AND has presence of at least one low risk factor: simple rear-end MVC, sitting position in ED, ambulatory at any time, delayed onset of neck pain, and absence of midline c spine tenderness

  3. AND able to range neck actively (i.e. rotate neck 45 degrees left and right)

National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria [9]: If the patient meets all of the below criteria, no radiology is required.

  1. No posterior midline cervical-spine tenderness

  2. No evidence of intoxication

  3. A normal level of alertness

  4. No focal neurologic deficit

  5. No painful distracting injuries

C-Spine Clearance in Intoxicated Patients

Intoxicated patients are an important population to consider in the setting of suspected cervical spine injury: not only do they make up nearly half of all blunt and penetrating trauma patients [2], but intoxication and reduced level of consciousness disqualify the use of the above decision-rules, thereby necessitating CT imaging. CT is insensitive for ligamentous injuries and current practice dictates that after a negative CT c-spine these patients (and obtunded patients generally) are left in a c-collar until they can be reassessed unaltered or have additional imaging performed, usually MRI. 

A wealth of gradually accumulating data challenges the need to keep obtunded patients (and therefore plausibly intoxicated patients) in prolonged immobilization or to obtain MRI after a single negative CT c-spine, notably: 

  • Smith et al [3]: meta-analysis, 16785 obtunded trauma patients 

    • 99.9% Sn and 99.9% Sp for CSI; NPV 100%

  • Panczykowski et al [4]: meta-analysis, 14327 obtunded or intubated patients

    • 99.9% Sn and 99.9% Sp for unstable cervical spine injury

  • Patel et a [5]: systematic review, 1718 obtunded blunt trauma patients

    • NPV 100% for unstable CSI, 91% for any stable CSI

  • Raza et al [6]: meta-analysis, 1850 obtunded blunt trauma patients

    • 93.7% Sn and 99%.7% Sp; NPV 99.7%

  • Hogan et al [7]: retrospective review, 1400 blunt trauma patients

    • NPV 98.9% for ligamentous injury; 100% for unstable CSI

EAST Practice Management Guidelines reflect these findings, conditionally recommending c-collar removal after a negative high-quality CT c-spine alone. [5]

Most recently, a prospective observational study of intoxicated patients with blunt trauma was published by Bush et al [8] in JAMA Surgery in 2016. The authors followed 1696 adult blunt trauma patients who underwent 2mm-thickness, three-view CT c-spine, finding that among intoxicated patients (alcohol or other drugs) a single negative CT c-spine alone had a NPV of 99.2% for all cervical spine injuries and 99.8% for unstable cervical spine injuries. Of the 632 intoxicated patients, only 1 had an unstable ligamentous injury that was missed on CT and later identified on MRI.  This patient had quadriplegia on initial evaluation. The incidence and types of CSI were similar between intoxicated and sober groups. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

Given the high incidence of intoxication in blunt trauma patients who are collared and require c-spine clearance, it is worth considering whether an otherwise neurologically intact intoxicated patient with a negative high-quality CT c-spine requires prolonged immobilization. This is of particular importance in patients that become combative and demand removal of their cervical collar.  In such cases, ED physicians may be forced to sedate the patient in order to keep the cervical collar on or obtain an MRI, which may place the patient at risk. While the data is admittedly limited, it does demonstrate that the incidence of clinically significant c-spine injury in the setting of a negative CT scan is very low, with some authors stating it approaches zero. Given this, it may be justifiable to remove an intoxicated patient’s cervical collar in the setting of a reassuring clinical exam and negative CT scan in settings when the risk of keeping the patient in a cervical collar until sober is deemed to outweigh the risks of missed cervical spine injury.


Expert Commentary

Everything we recommend in medicine is a risk-benefit analysis.  If there is extremely little to benefit, then do not recommend. If the risk exceeds the benefit, then do not recommend.  Keep this in mind when considering various cervical collar scenarios, and the concept of being risk-averse vs being risk-neurotic.

Most of us think we are risk averse, but no one thinks they are risk neurotic.  However, many witnessed practices regarding the use of cervical collars are exactly that.  For instance, a patient that had an MVC yesterday presents with neck pain after waking up this morning.  They have been moving all over, showered, dressed, etc. There is some midline tenderness so now they must lie flat and still and wear a collar. They are not allowed to walk, use the toilet, or move themselves onto a CT table even though they got themselves in and out of the car this morning.  This is risk neurosis. This patient has gained nothing from wearing this collar. Furthermore, we have inconvenienced ourselves by having to now logroll this patient for imaging studies, not to mention the bedpan for the negative pregnancy test. Why are we doing this to ourselves and our patients?  Risk neurosis.

Do not confuse this with the MVC patient who had immediate neck pain, was removed from the car by EMS and immediately placed in a collar.  That patient has not moved around yet and declared themselves low enough risk yet. It is reasonable to handle them with care until the doctor can assess, and possibly image before considering collar removal.  Risk averse.

Back to the intoxicated patient demanding collar removal.  My risk-benefit calculator which is continuously churning in my head considers the two options:  

  1. Sedate and restrain a neurologically intact patient without signs of spine injury, despite not meeting strict clearance criteria due to intoxication.  This puts him at risk for violent behavior, over sedation, aspiration, prolonged ED length of stay, etc. Even if the patient is hiding a fracture, is the struggle to restrain him protecting his spine or putting it at risk?

  2. Do not make him wear the collar but make him stay in the ED until he can be clinically reassessed (when sober).  Even if he has a c spine fracture, how likely is deterioration during this time? 

Which is riskier for the patient’s spine, the restraint to force a collar on or the relatively peaceful collarless period?  My risk-benefit calculator tells me the peaceful collarless period is safest.

So remember to ask yourself when faced with a cervical collar scenario what are the risks and benefits of applying this collar?  Is there any real benefit? And then ask yourself the truly difficult but introspective question: Am I being risk averse or am I being risk-neurotic?

Matt_Levine-33.png
 

Matt Levine, MD

Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine

Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine


Citations

  1. Como, John J., et al. "Practice management guidelines for identification of cervical spine injuries following trauma: update from the eastern association for the surgery of trauma practice management guidelines committee." Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 67.3 (2009): 651-659.

  2. Rivara, Frederick P., et al. "The magnitude of acute and chronic alcohol abuse in trauma patients." Archives of Surgery 128.8 (1993): 907-913.

  3. Smith, Jackie S. "A synthesis of research examining timely removal of cervical collars in the obtunded trauma patient with negative computed tomography: an evidence-based review." Journal of Trauma Nursing 21.2 (2014): 63-67.

  4. Panczykowski, David M., Nestor D. Tomycz, and David O. Okonkwo. "Comparative effectiveness of using computed tomography alone to exclude cervical spine injuries in obtunded or intubated patients: meta-analysis of 14,327 patients with blunt trauma: A review." Journal of neurosurgery 115.3 (2011): 541-549.

  5. Patel, Mayur B., et al. "Cervical spine collar clearance in the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient: a systematic review and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma." The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 78.2 (2015): 430.

  6. Raza, Mushahid, et al. "Safe cervical spine clearance in adult obtunded blunt trauma patients on the basis of a normal multidetector CT scan—a meta-analysis and cohort study." Injury 44.11 (2013): 1589-1595.

  7. Hogan, Gerard J., et al. "Exclusion of Unstable Cervical Spine Injury in Obtunded Patients with Blunt Trauma: Is MR Imaging Needed when Multi–Detector Row CT Findings Are Normal? 1." Radiology 237.1 (2005): 106-113.

  8. Bush, Lisa, et al. "Evaluation of cervical spine clearance by computed tomographic scan alone in intoxicated patients with blunt trauma." JAMA surgery 151.9 (2016): 807-813.

  9. Hoffman, J.R., et. al. “Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group.” NEJM. 2000. 343(2):94-99.

  10. Stiell, IG, et. al. “The Canadian C-Spine rule for Radiography in Alert and Stable Patients.” JAMA. 2001. 286(15):1841-8.


How To Cite This Post

[Peer-Reviewed, Web Publication] Chodakowski J, Wilson D. (2019, Sept 16). Clearing C-Spine in Intoxicated Blunt Trauma Patients. [NUEM Blog. Expert Commentary by Levine M]. Retrieved from http://www.nuemblog.com/blog/cspine-clearance-etoh.


Other Posts You May Enjoy

Posted on September 16, 2019 and filed under Trauma.