4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Blunt cerebrovascular injury incidence, stroke-rate, and mortality with the expanded Denver criteria

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 164, Issue 3, Pages 494-499

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.04.032

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Blunt carotid and vertebral artery injury, collectively termed blunt cerebrovascular injury occur in less than 1% of blunt traumas. Conventional indications for screening miss up to 20% of blunt cerebrovascular injuries. Therefore, the expanded Denver criteria were created in 2012. We hypothesized the introduction of the expanded Denver criteria would lead to an increase in the national detection of blunt cerebrovascular injury with a subsequent decrease in stroke rate. Methods: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for blunt trauma admissions. Patients were divided into 2 groups: pre-expanded Denver criteria (2007-2011) or post-expanded Denver criteria era (2013-2015). The primary endpoint was the incidence of blunt cerebrovascular injury, which was used as a surrogate for detection. Results: There were 10,183 blunt cerebrovascular injuries with 5,364 blunt cerebrovascular injuries in the pre-expanded Denver criteria group (0.19%) and 4,819 blunt cerebrovascular injuries in the post expanded Denver criteria group (0.22%; P <.001). The stroke-rate in the post-expanded Denver criteria was significantly higher (9.2% vs 5.5%; OR 2.73, Cl 2.29-3.25, P <.001). The strongest associated injury with blunt cerebrovascular injury was skull-base fracture (OR 3.61, CI 3.46-3.77, P <.001). Conclusion: The detection of blunt cerebrovascular injury has increased by 16% since the publication of the expanded Denver criteria. Skull-base fracture is the strongest traumatic risk factor for blunt cerebrovascular injury. Although detection may have increased, the stroke-rate nearly doubled in the post-eDC era. This warrants future research. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available