Skip to main content
Log in

Relevante Zufallsbefunde und iatrogene Verletzungen

Eine retrospektive Analyse von 1165 Schockraumpatienten

Relevant incidental findings and iatrogenic injuries

A retrospective analysis of 1165 resuscitation room patients

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Anaesthesist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Im Rahmen der Schnittbildgebung zufällig erhobene Befunde sind ein bereits häufiger an verschiedenen Patientenkollektiven beschriebenes Phänomen. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist die Evaluation der Relevanz von Zufallsbefunden und iatrogen verursachten Befunden bei Patienten, die über den Schockraum (SR) aufgenommen wurden und in diesem Rahmen ein Ganzkörper-CT erhalten haben.

Methode

Eingeschlossen wurden alle Patienten, die im Zeitraum vom 01.02.2012 bis zum 31.01.2014 über den SR der Zentralen Notaufnahme (ZNA) der Universitätsmedizin Mannheim aufgenommen wurden. Es erfolgten eine retrospektive Erhebung aller im Rahmen der CT-Bildgebung erhobenen Zufallsbefunde und eine Klassifizierung nach Relevanz. Darüber hinaus wurden alle iatrogenen Verletzungen und Tubus- bzw. Katheterfehllagen erfasst.

Ergebnisse

Bei den 1165 eingeschlossenen traumatologischen und internistisch-neurologischen SR-Patienten, welche ein Ganzkörper-CT im Rahmen der SR-Versorgung erhalten hatten, kamen insgesamt 465 Zufallsbefunde zur Darstellung, von denen 72 Befunde (15,5 % der Zufallsbefunde) in der CT-Diagnostik in Zusammenschau mit der klinischen Präsentation als klinisch relevant eingestuft wurden. Insgesamt zeigten damit 5,8 % der Patienten (68/1165) relevante Zufallsbefunde. Des Weiteren zeigten sich bei 3,7 % der Patienten (43/1165) Befunde, die als iatrogen verursacht gewertet wurden.

Schlussfolgerung

Zusätzlich zu den diagnostizierten Hauptbefunden fanden sich in der Ganzkörper-CT bei fast 10 % (9,5 %) der Patienten klinisch relevante Zufallsbefunde und iatrogen verursachte Befunde.

Abstract

Background

Whole-body computed tomography (CT) is increasingly being used as the diagnostic modality of choice in patients admitted to the resuscitation room. Beyond findings related to the suspected diagnosis it often additionally reveals incidental findings. The aim of this investigation was the evaluation of these findings in patients admitted via the emergency room after suffering potential major trauma or life-threatening medical conditions. Furthermore, the number of iatrogenic injuries as well as misplaced catheters and endotracheal tubes was investigated.

Methods

All patients admitted from 1 February 2012 to 31 January 2014 via the resuscitation area of the Mannheim University Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital and level 1 trauma center, were included in this study if they had undergone a whole-body CT scan at admission. Data from 1362 patients were collected retrospectively and 197 patients were excluded because of missing data so that the final cohort consisted of 1165 patients (1038 trauma and 127 internal neurological patients). Reports from the whole-body CT scans were screened for incidental findings. These findings were then classified as either clinically relevant or not. Furthermore, the reports were checked for iatrogenic injuries as well as misplaced catheters and endotracheal tubes.

Results

A total of 465 incidental findings were reported in 293 patients (25.1%) of the final cohort. In the synopsis of the radiological and clinical findings, 72 were rated as clinically relevant. In one patient two relevant incidental findings were reported and one patient presented with three incidental findings. In total, relevant incidental findings could be detected in 5.8% of the study patients (68/1165). In the discharge letters and/or the radiological report 16.2% of the incidental findings rated as clinically relevant were reported to be previously known, 66.2% were reported to be unknown and 17.6% could not be unequivocally classified as known or unknown due to missing references in the discharge letters. The group of internal neurological patients were clearly older than the trauma patients (61.6 years vs. 45.5 years). The rate of relevant incidental findings in the internal neurological group was more than twice as high as in the trauma group (11.0% vs. 5.2%); however, in the relatively young trauma group 1 in 20 patients showed an incidental finding classified as clinically relevant. In 43 (3.7%) patients a total of 46 iatrogenic injuries or misplaced catheters were reported. The most common finding was a too deeply placed endotracheal tube and five transurethral catheters placed in the emergency room were found to be blocked within the urethra.

Conclusion

In addition to the main diagnosis, clinically relevant incidental findings were reported in nearly 25% of whole-body CT scans of patients admitted to the resuscitation room. Approximately 6% of patients had incidental findings rated as clinically relevant. In the internal neurological group of patients the rate of incidental findings was doubled compared to the trauma group; however, the latter were significantly younger. Whole-body CT was also useful for diagnosing iatrogenic injuries and misplaced catheters in approximately 4% of the study patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abbreviations

A.:

Arterie

CT:

Computertomographie

GKCT:

Ganzkörpercomputertomotgraphie

SR:

Schockraum

V.:

Vene

v. A.:

Verdacht auf oder vor allem

ZNA:

Zentrale Notaufnahme

z. T.:

zum Teil

ZVK:

Zentraler Venenkatheter

Literatur

  1. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM et al (2010) Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: White paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol 7:754–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bovio S, Cataldi A, Reimondo G et al (2006) Prevalence of adrenal incidentaloma in a contemporary computerized tomography series. J Endocrinol Invest 29:298–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bouillon B, Begleitung M, Pieper D et al (2016) S3-Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletzten-Behandlung. http://www.traumanetzwerk-dgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/traumanetzwerk-dgu.de/docs/S3_Polytrauma_Schwerverletzten-Behandlung_2016-07.pdf (AWMF Register-Nr. 012/019)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fakler JKM, Özkurtul O, Josten C (2014) Retrospective analysis of incidental non-trauma associated findings in severely injured patients identified by whole-body spiral CT scans. Patient Saf Surg. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-014-0036-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Grüttner J, Viergutz T, Bolte M et al (2015) Relevante Nebenbefunde im CT: Ein unterschätzter Aspekt der modernen Lungenemboliediagnostik. Notfall Rettungsmed 18:222–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoffstetter P, Herold T, Daneschnejad M et al (2008) Nicht traumaassozierte Nebenbefunde bei Ganzkörpercomputertomografien im Rahmen der Polytraumadiagnostik. Rofo 180:120–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick L‑M et al (2009) Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: A retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 373:1455–1461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kroczek EK, Wieners G, Steffen I et al (2017) Non-traumatic incidental findings in patients undergoing whole-body computed tomography at initial emergency admission. Emerg Med J 34(10):643–646. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-205722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Paluska TR, Sise MJ, Sack DI et al (2007) Incidental CT findings in trauma patients: Incidence and implications for care of the injured. J Trauma 62:157–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Vanness DJ et al (2008) Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: Clinical and economic impact. Radiology 249:151–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Struck MF, Ewens S, Fakler JKM et al (2018) Clinical consequences of chest tube malposition in trauma resuscitation: Single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 0(0):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-018-0966-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Struck MF, Fakler JKM, Bernhard M et al (2018) Mechanical complications and outcomes following invasive emergency procedures in severely injured trauma patients. Sci Rep 8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22457-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Treskes K, Bos SA, Beenen LFM et al (2017) High rates of clinically relevant incidental findings by total-body CT scanning in trauma patients; results of the REACT-2 trial. Eur Radiol 27(6):2451–2462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4598-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tritschler S, Roosen A, Füllhase C et al (2013) Urethral stricture: Etiology, investigation and treatments. Dtsch Arztebl Int 110:220–226

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Viergutz T, Terboven T, Henzler T et al (2018) Relevante Zufallsbefunde und iatrogene Verletzungen. Anaesthesist. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-018-0505-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wagner SC, Morrison WB, Carrino JA et al (2002) Picture archiving and communication system: Effect on reporting of incidental findings. Radiology 225:500–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Viergutz.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

T. Viergutz, T. Terboven, T. Henzler, D. Schäfer, S.O. Schönberg und S. Sudarski geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

T. Viergutz und T. Terboven sind gleichberechtigte Erstautoren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Viergutz, T., Terboven, T., Henzler, T. et al. Relevante Zufallsbefunde und iatrogene Verletzungen. Anaesthesist 67, 901–906 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-018-0505-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-018-0505-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation