EFAST vs CXR for PTX

    NextPrevious

    EFAST vs CXR for PTX

    Surgical resident X: “We have to get the chest X-ray before we go to CT.”

    EM resident Y: “Honestly, [surgical colleague X], I don’t think we do. The FAST didn’t have any evidence of pneumothorax, so I think we’re safe to proceed to the CT scanner rather than wait for X-ray right now.”

    Surgical resident X: “We always get the chest X-ray before we leave the trauma room.”

    EM resident Y (not interested in a fight): “Ok.”

     

    Not time to buck hundreds of years of tradition unimpeded by progress (and there are some other, less important, reasons for a chest X-ray on trauma patients), but it begs the question, which is better for detecting the pneumothorax in a trauma patient? We know it’s not our own ears (though you should listen, and will likely detect a larger collapsed lung this way), but is CXR or EFAST more sensitive for pneumothorax?

    The way I asked the question, you may already know it’s the EFAST Exam. Several studies have looked at this concept, but one of the more cited ones shows the following relative sensitivities and specificities. Do a good job of doing the EFAST, and you’ll be doing a good job to identify this immediately relevant pathology in your trauma patients. Don’t skip the chest X-ray (not just yet), but be knowledgeable about just how much it’s helping (probably not much) and how much false reassurance it may be adding (could be substantial). 

    Sensitivity Specificity
    EFAST Ultrasound 86-98% 97-100%
    Supine AP Chest X-ray 28-75% 100%

     

    Need a review on ultrasound detection of pneumothorax? Check this REBEL EM article, this emDOCs article, these 5-minute sono videos, or this Ultrasound Podcast video.

    • Welcome! This is the website for the Mount Sinai Emergency Ultrasound Division. It serves as an information resource for residents, fellows, medical students and others seeking information about point-of-care ultrasound. There is a lot ofRead more

    • Bag Mask Ventilation During Intubation

      A few days ago NEJM published the results of an investigation with profound implications for our specialty.  A group of intensivists and anesthesiologists conducted a multicenter, randomized trial conducted in seven ICUs to study theRead more

    • Gastric Emptying for Acute Poisonings

      At the request of department leadership, we will be revisiting methods of gastric decontamination for today’s pearl.  Two methods in particular. Ipecac-induced emesis and gastric lavage are two procedures that we read about in medicalRead more

    • Pacemakers Review pt. 3

      Today we will review complications associated w/ implanted pacemakers that you may encounter in the ED and thus ought to be familiar with. Generally, complications can be divided into two categories: early vs. late EarlyRead more

    • Pacemakers Review Pt. 2

      Cardiac pacing as an intervention can be conceptualized as addressing problems in electrophysiological conduction and/or.  So, for example, if there is a disruption in the electrical continuity between the atrium and the ventricle, a pacerRead more

    • Pacemakers Review Pt. 1

      The pursuit of mastery over cardiovascular emergencies demands a rough familiarity with implanted devices which includes why they get implanted in the first place (indications), how they work, how they malfunction, and how they affectRead more

    • In honor of a rosh review question that I got wrong, lets review Lyme disease!   Lyme disease is caused by the spirochete Boriella burgdorferi, transmitted to humans through tick bites from ixodes ticks. Location:Read more

    • NGT INSERTION

      Your patient has an SBO and has repeated bilious emesis on the side. The surgery team is in the OR and they ask if you can place the nasogastric tube (NGT). Lets review proper NGTRead more

    • No, that’s not an olive. That’s Pyloric Stenosis!

      Inspired by what appears to have been a very interesting day in the Peds ED, lets review a rare but interesting pediatric entity: PYLORIC STENOSIS Background: MC in Males (5:1) & firstborn children (30%) UsuallyRead more

    NextPrevious