3.9 Article

Computed Tomographic Angiography Versus Conventional Angiography for the Diagnosis of Blunt Cerebrovascular Injury in Trauma Patients

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b83b63

关键词

Blunt cerebrovascular injury; Computed tomography angiography; Conventional angiography; Carotid artery injury; Vertebral artery injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) in trauma patients are rare but potentially devastating injuries, particularly if the diagnosis is delayed. Conventional angiography (CA) has been the screening and diagnostic modality of choice for identifying BCVI. With the advent of high-resolution computed tomography (CT), CT angiography has become a common modality for the screening of BCVI. A liberalized screening approach has suggested that cerebrovascular injuries are missed in many patients; however, no standard BCVI screening protocol exists. Early diagnosis of the BCVI can prevent long-term sequelae. Methods: In this prospective study, all patients received a CT angiogram (16-slice or 64-slice) at the time of injury assessment and followed 24 hours to 48 hours later with CA of the cerebrovasculature. Results: A total of 158 patients were enrolled in the study. CA identified 32 injuries to the cerebrovasculature in 27 patients; CT detected only 13 true injuries (40.6%) in 12 patients. Of the 32 injuries, 11 were carotid artery injuries and 21 were of the vertebral artery. Seventy-four patients were screened with the 16-slice CT scanner with an overall sensitivity of 29%, and 84 patients were screened with the 64-slice CT scanner with an overall sensitivity of 54%. The combined specificity and sensitivity of 16- and 64-slice CT in detecting BCVI were 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92-0.99) and 0.41 (95% confidence interval: 0.22-0.61), respectively. Conclusion: Neither 16- nor 64-slice CT angiography is as accurate as CA as a screening tool for BCVI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据