OBJECTIVEFocused Abdominal Sono-graphy for Trauma (FAST) is widely used for the detection of intraperitoneal free fluids in patients suffering from blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). This study aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of this investigation in a designated trauma centre.

METHODSThis was a retrospective study of BAT patients over a 6 year period seen in a trauma centre in Hong Kong. FAST findings were compared with laparotomy, abdominal computed tomography or autopsy findings, which served as the gold standard for presence of intraperitoneal free fluids. The patients who did not have FAST or gold standard confirmatory test performed, had preexisting peritoneal fluid, died at resuscitation or had imcomplete documentation of FAST findings were excluded. The performance of FAST was expressed as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values (PV), likelihood ratios (LR) and accuracy.

RESULTSFAST was performed in 302 patients and 153 of them were included in this analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive PV, negative PV, positive LR, negative LR and accuracy for FAST were respectively 50.0%, 97.3%, 87.0%, 84.6%, 18.8, 0.5 and 85.0%. FAST was found to be more sensitive in less severely injured patients and more specific in more severely injured patients.

CONCLUSIONFAST is a reliable investigation in the initial assessment of BAT patients. The diagnostic values of FAST could be affected by the severity of injury and staff training is needed to further enhance its effective use. Key words: Laparotomy; Autopsy; Tomography, X-ray computed; Tomography, spiral computed; Ultrasonography.

Objective: Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (FAST) is widely used for the detection of intraperitoneal free fluids in patients suffering from blunt abdominal trauma (BAT).This study aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of this investigation in a designated trauma centre.Methods: This was a retrospective study of BAT patients over a 6 year period seen in a trauma centre in Hong Kong.FAST findings were compared with laparotomy,abdominal computed tomography or autopsy findings,which served as the gold standard for presence of intrapcritoneal free fluids.The patients who did not have FAST or gold standard confirmatory test performed,had preexisting peritoneal fluid,died at resuscitation or had imcomplete documentation of FAST findings were excluded.The performance of FAST was expressed as sensitivity,specificity,predictive values (PV),likelihood ratios (LR) and accuracy.Results: FAST was performed in 302 patients and 153 of them were included in this analysis.The sensitivity,specificity,positive PV,negative PV,positive LR,negative LR and accuracy for FAST were respectively 50.0 ％,97,3％,87.0％,84.6％,18.8,0.5 and 85.0％.FAST was found to be more sensitive in less severely injured patients and more specific in more severely injured patients.Conclusion: FAST is a reliable investigation iu the initial assessment of BAT patients.The diagnostic values of FAST could be affected by the severity of injury and staff training is needed to further enhance its effective use.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.