The Amsterdam wrist rules: The multicenter prospective derivation and external validation of a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute wrist trauma

Background: Although only 39 % of patients with wrist trauma have sustained a fracture, the majority of patients is routinely referred for radiography. The purpose of this study was to derive and externally validate a clinical decision rule that selects patients with acute wrist trauma in the Emergency Department (ED) for radiography. Methods: This multicenter prospective study consisted of three components: (1) derivation of a clinical prediction model for detecting wrist fractures in patients following wrist trauma; (2) external validation of this model; and (3) design of a clinical decision rule. The study was conducted in the EDs of five Dutch hospitals: one academic hospital (derivation cohort) and four regional hospitals (external validation cohort). We included all adult patients with acute wrist trauma. The main outcome was fracture of the wrist (distal radius, distal ulna or carpal bones) diagnosed on conventional X-rays. Results: A total of 882 patients were analyzed; 487 in the derivation cohort and 395 in the validation cohort. We derived a clinical prediction model with eight variables: age; sex, swelling of the wrist; swelling of the anatomical snuffbox, visible deformation; distal radius tender to palpation; pain on radial deviation and painful axial compression of the thumb. The Area Under the Curve at external validation of this model was 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.77-0.85). The sensitivity and specificity of the Amsterdam Wrist Rules (AWR) in the external validation cohort were 98 % (95 % CI: 95-99 %) and 21 % (95 % CI: 15 %-28). The negative predictive value was 90 % (95 % CI: 81-99 %). Conclusions: The Amsterdam Wrist Rules is a clinical prediction rule with a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for fractures of the wrist. Although external validation showed low specificity and 100 % sensitivity could not be achieved, the Amsterdam Wrist Rules can provide physicians in the Emergency Department with a useful screening tool to select patients with acute wrist trauma for radiography. The upcoming implementation study will further reveal the impact of the Amsterdam Wrist Rules on the anticipated reduction of X-rays requested, missed fractures, Emergency Department waiting times and health care costs. Trial registration: This study was registered in the Dutch Trial Registry, reference number NTR2544 on October 1st, 2010

A clinical decision rule for the use of plain radiography in children after acute wrist injury: development and external validation of the Amsterdam Pediatric Wrist Rules

Background: In most hospitals, children with acute wrist trauma are routinely referred for radiography. Objective: To develop and validate a clinical decision rule to decide whether radiography in children with wrist trauma is required. Materials and methods: We prospectively developed and validated a clinical decision rule in two study populations. All children who presented in the emergency department of four hospitals with pain following wrist trauma were included and evaluated for 18 clinical variables. The outcome was a wrist fracture diagnosed by plain radiography. Results: Included in the study were 787 children. The prediction model consisted of six variables: age, swelling of the distal radius, visible deformation, distal radius tender to palpation, anatomical snuffbox tender to palpation, and painful or abnormal supination. The model showed an area under the receiver operator characteristics curve of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83). The sensitivity and specificity were 95.9% and 37.3%, respectively. The use of this model would have resulted in a 22% absolute reduction of radiographic examinations. In a validation study, 7/170 fractures (4.1%, 95% CI: 1.7-8.3%) would have been missed using the decision model. Conclusion: The decision model may be a valuable tool to decide whether radiography in children after wrist trauma is required

Coronary revascularization induces a shift from cardiac toward noncardiac mortality without improving survival in vascular surgery patients

Objective: Although evidence has shown that ischemic heart disease (IHD) in vascular surgery patients has a negative impact on the prognosis after surgery, it is unclear whether directed treatment of IHD may influence cause-specific and overall mortality. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic implication of coronary revascularization (CR) on overall and cause-specific mortality in vascular surgery patients. Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery stenosis, or peripheral artery disease in a university hospital in The Netherlands between January 2003 and December 2011 were retrospectively included. Survival estimates were obtained by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 1104 patients were included. Adjusted survival analyses showed that IHD significantly increased the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.87) and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.76). Compared with those without CR, patients previously undergoing CR had similar overall mortality (HR, 1.38 vs 1.62; P = .274) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.83 vs 2.02; P = .656). Nonrevascularized IHD patients were more likely to die of IHD (6.9% vs 35.7%), whereas revascularized IHD patients more frequently died of cardiovascular causes unrelated to IHD (39.1% vs 64.3%; P = .018). Conclusions: This study confirms the significance of IHD for postoperative survival of vascular surgery patients. CR was associated with lower IHD-related death rates. However, it failed to provide an overall survival benefit because of an increased rate of cardiovascular mortality unrelated to IHD. Intensification of secondary prevention regimens may be required to prevent this shift toward non-IHD-related death and thereby improve life expectancy