Frequency, Recognition, and Potential Risk Factors of Incidental Findings on Trauma Computed Tomography Scans: A Cross-Sectional Study at an Urban Level One Trauma Center

• Published in: Journal of Acute Medicine Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 106 - 114
• Main Authors: Lai, Wei-An, Liu, Pang-Hsu, Tsai, Ming-Jen, Huang, Ying Chieh
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: China (Republic : 1949- ) 台灣急診醫學會 ＆ Ainosco Press 01.09.2020; Ainosco Press
• Subjects: Original; computed tomography; patient safety; incidental findings; injuries; malpractice; incidental fi ndings
• ISSN: 2211-5587; 2211-5595
• DOI: 10.6705/j.jacme.202009_10(3).0002

Background: Computed tomography (CT) use in injured patients has continuously increased in the past decades. We designed and undertook this study to evaluate the frequency, and potential risks of incidental findings (IFs), and how they were processed in trauma patients receiving CT scans. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed CT scans, official CT reports, and basic demographics in trauma patients who received CT scans at our emergency department in 2016. Scans with IFs prompted a detailed review of medical records to determine clinical significance and how they were processed. IFs were classified into three categories: category I (potentially severe condition, in-time management required), category II (not urgent, follow-up needed), and category III (of minor concern). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to determine patient characteristics associated with IFs. Results: In the 4,092 scans enrolled, IFs were identified in 649 (15.9%). There were 13 (2.0%) category I, 306 (47.2%) category II, and 330 (50.8%) category III IFs. Patients with IFs were older than those without. No sex-based difference was found. Most (61.5%) of the scans were performed for the head; however, the abdomen had the highest IF prevalence (26.2%). Documentation about IFs was poor; 31% of category I, 91.9% of category II, and 97.0% of category III have no related record. Old age remains the risk predicting the presence of IFs, and every year of increasing age was independently associated with a higher prevalence of IFs (OR: 1.019; 95% CI: 1.015-1.024). Conclusions: IFs are common in trauma CT scans; however, recognition and management remain poor. Abdomen and chest scans, and CT in older patients should remind us of increasing risks of IFs.