Page 161 - Ultrasonography in Prehospital and Emergency Medicine - Rein Ketelaars

Abdominal prehospital ultrasound impacts treatment decisions in a Dutch helicopter emergency medical service 159
Table 7.5 Timing of ultrasound examinations
Immediately upon arrival During treatment
Before departure to hospital During transport
Upon arrival at hospital
Total
36 (6.1) 107 (18.0) 97 (16.3) 353 (59.4) 1 (0.2) 594 (100)
131 (8.0) 321 (19.7) 304 (18.6) 868 (53.2) 7 (0.4) 1631 (100)
Timing of ultrasound examination
Radboudumc n (%)
Total n (%)
Table 7.6 PHUS diagnostic performance for free abdominal fluid, early and late group compared
PHUS
CT scan or laparotomy, n (%)
+
–
Early group(a) Late group(b)
+ 7 (26.9)
– 19 (73.1)
Total 26 (100)
+ 21 (31.8)
– 45 (68.2)
Total 66 (100)
5 (5.4) 88 (94.6) 93 (100) 5 (2.1) 232 (97.9) 236 (100)
12 (58.3% = PPV) 107 (82.2% = NPV) 119
26 (80.8% = PPV) 277 (83.8 % = NPV) 302
PHUS positive (+) or negative (–) for free abdominal fluid, compared to CT scan or laparotomy. PHUS, prehospital ultrasound; CT, computed tomography
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
a. Combined ultrasound examinations performed upon arrival and during treatment on-scene
b. Ultrasound examinations performed during transport.
7