Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 357, Issue 9266, 5 May 2001, Pages 1391-1396
The Lancet

Articles
The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04561-XGet rights and content

Summary

Background

There is much controversy about the use of computed tomography (CT) for patients with minor head injury. We aimed to develop a highly sensitive clinical decision rule for use of CT 2in patients with minor head injuries.

Methods

We carried out this prospective cohort study in the emergency departments of ten large Canadian hospitals and included consecutive adults who presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13–15 after head injury. We did standardised clinical assessments before the CT scan. The main outcome measures were need for neurological intervention and clinically important brain injury on CT.

Findings

The 3121 patients had the following characteristics: mean age 38·7 years); GCS scores of 13 (3·5%), 14 (16·7%), 15 (79·8%); 8% had clinically important brain injury; and 1% required neurological intervention. We derived a CT head rule which consists of five high-risk factors (failure to reach GCS of 15 within 2 h, suspected open skull fracture, any sign of basal skull fracture, vomiting ≥2 episodes, or age ≥65 years) and two additional medium-risk factors (amnesia before impact >30 min and dangerous mechanism of injury). The high-risk factors were 100% sensitive (95% CI 92–100%) for predicting need for neurological intervention, and would require only 32% of patients to hundergo CT. The medium-risk factors were 98·4% sensitive (95% CI 96–99%) and 49·6% specific for predicting clinically important brain injury, and would require only 54% of patients to undergo CT.

Interpretation

We have developed the Canadian CT Head Rule, a highly sensitive decision rule for use of CT. This rule has the potential to significantly standardise and improve the emergency management of patients with minor head injury.

Introduction

An estimated one million cases of head injury are seen yearly in North American emergency departments and most are classified as minimal or minor.1 Patients with minimal head injuries have not suffered loss of consciousness or amnesia and rarely require admission to hospital. Minor head injury is defined as a patient with a history of loss of consciousness, amnesia, or disorientation and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13–15.2 Although most patients with minor head injury can be discharged without sequelae after observation, a small proportion deteriorate and require neurosurgicalinter vention for intracranial haematoma.3, 4 Early diagnosis of intracranial haematoma by computed tomography (CT) followed by early surgery is very important in the treatment of such patients.

Use of CT for minor head injury has become increasingly common, particularly in North America. In 1992, an estimated 270 000 CT scans of the head were done in US emergency departments for head injury.5 Typical US hospital charges for unenhanced CT range from US$500 to 800, suggesting a national total cost of US$135–216 million. The US yield of CT for intracranial lesions in minor head injury is estimated to be quite low (0·7–3·7%).6, 7 We have previously shown a four-fold variation among similar Canadian teaching hospitals in the use of CT for minor head injury.8 More selective use of this expensive high technology investigation for patients with minor head injury could lead to large reductions in health-care costs throughout the western world.

Current guidelines provide conflicting recommendations for use of CT and previous studies to develop guidelines have been methodologically weak and inconclusive. There is a clear need for valid and reliable guidelines to allow physicians to be more selective in their use of CT without compromising care of patients with minor head injury. Clinical decision (or prediction) rules attempt to reduce the uncertainty of medical decisionmaking by standardising collection and interpretation of clinical data.9, 10 These decision-making tools are derived from original research and incorporate three or more variables from the history, physical examination, or simple tests. We have previously developed decision rules to allow physicians to be more selective in the use of radiography for patients with ankle,11, 12 knee,13 and cervical spine injuries. We aimed to prospectively derivean accurate, reliable, and clinically sensible decision rule for the use of CT in patients with minor head injury.

Section snippets

Study setting and population

We undertook a prospective cohort study in ten Canadian community and teaching institutions and enrolled consecutive adult patients if they presented to one of the emergency departments after sustaining acute minor head injury. Eligibility was based upon the patients having all of the following: blunt trauma to the head resulting in witnessed loss of consciousness, definite amnesia, or witnessed disorientation; initial emergency department GCS score of 13 or greater as determined by the

Results

Between October, 1996, and December, 1999, 3121 patients were enrolled and 100% of these had complete assessment of the primary outcome measure, need for neurological intervention (Table 1, Table 2). We scanned 2078 (67%) patients to assess the secondary outcome measure, clinically important injury on CT. The remaining 33% patients, who were all discharged directly from the emergency department, underwent the structured 14-day telephone proxy outcome measure administered by a registered nurse.

Discussion

We have successfully developed a highly sensitive clinical decision rule for the use of CT in patients with minor head injuries. This rule would allow doctors in emergency departments to order CT for their patients based upon strong evidence and to provide consistent management without jeopardising optimum patient care. Patients with minor head injuries can be identified at two levels of risk. Those patients with any one of five high-risk factors are at substantial risk for requiring

References (32)

  • National hospital ambulatory medical care survey 1992

    (1994)
  • RG Dacey et al.

    Neurosurgical complications after apparently minor head injury: assessment of risk in a series of 610 patients

    J Neurosurg

    (1986)
  • PA Taheri et al.

    Can patients with minor head injuries be safely discharge dhome?

    Arch Surg

    (1993)
  • A Laupacis et al.

    Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards

    JAMA

    (1997)
  • IG Stiell et al.

    Implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • IG Stiell et al.

    A multicentre trial to introduce clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries

    BMJ

    (1995)
  • Cited by (1157)

    • Management of Head Trauma

      2024, Surgical Clinics of North America
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text