Patients with moderate to severe head injury and abnormal coagulation studies have a significantly higher risk of brain injury. The objective of this study was to determine the association of clinical suspicion of coagulopathy and intracranial injury (ICI) among patients sustaining blunt head trauma, including minor injuries. As part of the NEXUS II blunt head injury study, enrolled patients were prospectively evaluated for ICI and suspicion of coagulopathy. We examined the relationship between suspicion of coagulopathy and the presence of any clinically significant or “therapeutically inconsequential” ICI based on head computed tomography (CT) scan results. The NEXUS II study enrolled 13,728 patients, including 493 with suspicion of coagulopathy. Significant ICI was present in 46 (9.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9–12.2) patients with suspected coagulopathy, and in 460 of 9863 (4.7%; 95% CI 4.3–5.1) patients without such suspicion. “Therapeutically inconsequential” findings were found on head CT scan in 74 patients, and 7 of these had suspected coagulopathy. Interventions including intubation, intracranial pressure monitoring, or craniotomy were performed in 5 of these 7 (71%; 95% CI 29–96) individuals, compared with only 3 of 67 (4%; 95% CI 1–12) patients without suspicion of coagulopathy. Initial clinical suspicion of coagulopathy, independent of laboratory confirmation, is associated with a greater prevalence of significant ICI injury after blunt head trauma; it also substantially increases the risk of morbidity despite the presence of an apparent “therapeutically inconsequential” injury. CT scanning of the head should be performed initially based on clinical suspicion of coagulopathy.

Study objective: We examine the prevalence and types of intracranial injuries sustained by intoxicated blunt trauma patients.Methods: The study was conducted as a secondary analysis of National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II head injury database. Treating physicians prospectively assessed presenting signs and symptoms on all blunt trauma patients who underwent head computed tomography (CT). Intoxication status was determined by the examining physician and was based on a history of intoxication, positive toxicologic screen result, or physical evidence suggesting intoxication. Intracranial injury diagnoses were based on final CT interpretations provided by attending radiologists.Results: Intracranial injury was detected in 1,193 of the 13,728 enrolled patients (8.7%), and intoxication was evident in 3,356 (24.4%) patients. Physicians were unable to assess intoxication status in 620 individuals. Intracranial injury was present in 231 intoxicated patients (231/3,356; 6.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0 to 7.8), 789 of 9,752 nonintoxicated patients (8.1%; 95% CI 7.6% to 8.6%), and 173 of the 620 patients who could not be assessed for intoxication (prevalence 27.9%; 95% Cl 24.4% to 31.6%). Intracranial injury was identified in only 5 of 299 intoxicated patients (1.7%) who had normal neurological examination results and no evidence of trauma to the calvarium.Conclusion: The prevalence of intracranial injury among intoxicated blunt trauma patients who are selected for head CT is lower than among nonintoxicated patients selected for imaging, which likely represents heightened concern in the presence of intoxication, even without other findings suggestive of intracranial injury. This conclusion is supported by the fact that few intoxicated patients with normal neurologic findings and no evidence of trauma to the calvarium had positive findings on CT imaging.

Blunt and penetrating trauma to the neck can result in life-threatening injuries that demand immediate attention and intervention on the part of the emergency physician and trauma surgeon. This article provides a literature-based update of the evaluation and management of injuries to aerodigestive and vascular organs of the neck. A brief review of cervical spine injuries related to penetrating neck trauma is also included. Airway injuries challenge even the most skilled practitioners; familiarity with multiple approaches to securing a definitive airway is required because success is not guaranteed with any single technique.