Plain Chest Film Versus Computed Tomography of the Chest as the Initial Imaging Modality for Blunt Thoracic Injury

Abstract

Background

While chest X-ray (CXR) is an efficient tool for expeditious detection of life-threatening injury, chest computed tomography (CCT) is more sensitive albeit with added time, cost, and radiation. Thus far, there is limited evidence and lack of consensus on the best imaging practices. We sought to determine the association between imaging modality and outcomes in isolated blunt thoracic trauma.

Methods

The 2017-2020 TQIP database was queried for adult patients who sustained isolated blunt chest trauma and underwent chest imaging within 24 hours of admission. Patients who underwent CCT were 2:1 propensity-score-matched to those who underwent CXR. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), ICU admission, need for and days requiring mechanical ventilation, complications, and discharge location.

Results

Propensity score matching yielded 17 716 patients with CCT and 8861 with CXR. While bivariate analysis showed lower 24-hr (CCT .2% vs CXR .4%, P = .0015) and in-hospital mortality (CCT 1.2% vs CXR 1.5%, P = .0454) in the CCT group, there was no difference in survival probability between groups (P = .1045). A higher percentage of CCT patients were admitted to the ICU (CCT 26.9% vs CXR 21.9%, P < .0001) and discharged to rehab (CCT .8% vs CXR .5%, P = .0178).

Discussion

CT offers no survival benefit over CXR in isolated blunt thoracic trauma. While CCT should be considered if clinically unclear, CXR likely suffices as an initial screening tool. These findings facilitate optimal resource allocation in constrained environments.