OBJECTIVES: To correlate patient condition and reasons for obtaining chest radiographs (CXRs) with the utility of CXRs in critical illness and to determine the potential impact of stricter criteria for obtaining a CXR in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Inception cohort study of 1003 CXRs examined prospectively. PATIENTS AND SETTING: A total of 157 consecutive patients admitted to the general surgical ICU of a 780-bed, urban, university-affiliated, tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTION: Nothing was done to influence the ordering of CXRs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Influence of CXR findings on clinical management. RESULTS: The likelihood of a clinically important finding was 17% for CXRs obtained for no clear clinical indication (routine), 26% for those obtained to verify the position of a medical device, and 30% for those obtained for suspected clinical conditions. By univariate analysis, suspected pathophysiologic condition, admission APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score, presence of a central venous or Swan-Ganz catheter, and length of ICU stay were all predictors of a significant finding. By multivariate analysis, the only independent predictor of a finding was a suspected clinical condition, and the only indwelling medical device that was an independent predictor of a finding was a Swan-Ganz catheter. If the criterion that routine CXRs should only be obtained in patients with Swan-Ganz catheters had been used, 200 CXRs would have been avoided during the 3-month study period. The only findings missed by not obtaining those CXRs would have been two malpositioned nasogastric tubes and one malpositioned central venous catheter. CONCLUSIONS: Chest radiographs should only be obtained on surgical ICU patients for specific indications. Routine CXRs for ICU patients are justified only for patients with indwelling Swan-Ganz catheters.
OBJECTIVES: To correlate patient condition and reasons for obtaining chest radiographs (CXRs) with the utility of CXRs in critical illness and to determine the potential impact of stricter criteria for obtaining a CXR in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Inception cohort study of 1003 CXRs examined prospectively. PATIENTS AND SETTING: A total of 157 consecutive patients admitted to the general surgical ICU of a 780-bed, urban, university-affiliated, tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTION: Nothing was done to influence the ordering of CXRs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Influence of CXR findings on clinical management. RESULTS: The likelihood of a clinically important finding was 17% for CXRs obtained for no clear clinical indication (routine), 26% for those obtained to verify the position of a medical device, and 30% for those obtained for suspected clinical conditions. By univariate analysis, suspected pathophysiologic condition, admission APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score, presence of a central venous or Swan-Ganz catheter, and length of ICU stay were all predictors of a significant finding. By multivariate analysis, the only independent predictor of a finding was a suspected clinical condition, and the only indwelling medical device that was an independent predictor of a finding was a Swan-Ganz catheter. If the criterion that routine CXRs should only be obtained in patients with Swan-Ganz catheters had been used, 200 CXRs would have been avoided during the 3-month study period. The only findings missed by not obtaining those CXRs would have been two malpositioned nasogastric tubes and one malpositioned central venous catheter. CONCLUSIONS: Chest radiographs should only be obtained on surgical ICU patients for specific indications. Routine CXRs for ICU patients are justified only for patients with indwelling Swan-Ganz catheters.
Authors: Joseph E Tonna; Kensaku Kawamoto; Angela P Presson; Chong Zhang; Mary C Mone; Robert E Glasgow; Richard G Barton; John R Hoidal; Yoshimi Anzai Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Marleen E Graat; Goda Choi; Esther K Wolthuis; Johanna C Korevaar; Peter E Spronk; Jaap Stoker; Margreeth B Vroom; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Crit Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Marleen E Graat; Karin A Hendrikse; Peter E Spronk; Johanna C Korevaar; Jaap Stoker; Marcus J Schultz Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Martijn Tolsma; Mohamed Bentala; Peter M J Rosseel; Bastiaan M Gerritse; Homme A J Dijkstra; Paul G H Mulder; Nardo J M van der Meer Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Benjamin Keveson; Ryan D Clouser; Mark P Hamlin; Pamela Stevens; Justin M Stinnett-Donnelly; Gilman B Allen Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2017-11-25
Authors: Martijn Tolsma; Tom A Rijpstra; Marcus J Schultz; Paul Gh Mulder; Nardo Jm van der Meer Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 6.925