4.5 Article

Minor head injury in the elderly at very low risk: a retrospective study of 6 years in an Emergency Department (ED)

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 37-41

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.05.023

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Mild head injury (MHI) is a common clinical problem in emergency departments (EDs). Long-standing debate is still going on about MHI in the elderly: current guidelines recommend to perform a CT scan on this group. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective study by reviewing patients older than 65 years, evaluated in our ED for which a CT scan of the head was performed for MHI, between 2004 and 2010. According to Italian Guidelines, we considered only patients with low-risk MHI. Results: We considered 2149 eligible patients: we recorded 47 pathological acute findings on CT scan (2.18%), but only 3 patients (0.14%) underwent neurosurgery. We analysed our patients according to different age groups: in patients in the 65- to 79-year-old group, we documented pathological findings on CT in 0.66% of cases, with a significant increase in the group older than 80 years, with a rate of 3.33% of acute findings on CT (OR 5.22, P < .001); 617 patients were on antiplatelet therapy: 22 of these patients (3.72%) had a pathological finding on CT scan (OR 2.23, P < .005). Discussion: Our retrospective analyses demonstrated that the incidence of intracranial complications after MHI is not different from that of the general population, and based on this finding, a CT does not seem to be necessary, at least up to 80 years old. Our data suggest that antiplatelet therapy could be a significant risk factor. Our results suggest that elderly patients between 65 and 79 years old without risk factors could be managed as younger patients. (C) 2013 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available