
==== Front
Indian J Crit Care Med
Indian J Crit Care Med
IJCCM
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine : Peer-reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine
0972-5229
1998-359X
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers

38323261
10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24620
Original Article
Efficacy of the Canadian CT Head Rule in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Minor Head Injury
Reddy Ashok 1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2551-7957

Poonthottathil Fawaz 2https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9468-9886

Jonnakuti Rani 3https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0271-9995

Thomas Roney 4https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7206-7667

1 Department of Emergency Medicine, NRI Medical College, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, India
2,4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Pushpagiri Medical College, Kerala, India
3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India
Roney Thomas, Department of Emergency Medicine, Pushpagiri Medical College, Kerala, India, Phone: +91 9447468919, e-mail: drroneythomas@gmail.com
2 2024
29 1 2024
28 2 148151
21 9 2023
20 11 2023
Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ © The Author(s). 2024 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Abstract

Introduction

Approximately, one in three computed tomography (CT) scans performed for head injury may be avoidable. We evaluate the efficacy of the Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) on head CT imaging in minor head injury (MHI) and its association of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and structural abnormality.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study from May 2018 to October 2019 in the Department of Emergency Medicine, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Thiruvalla, Kerala. The CCHR is applied to patients with MHIs (GCS 13–15) after initial stabilization and it is ascertained, if they require a non-contrast CT head and imaging is done. For those who do not require CT head as per the CCHR are excluded from this study. After imaging the patients who have a positive finding on CT head are admitted and followed up if they underwent any neurosurgical intervention, those with no findings in CT head are discharged from the hospital. A total of 203 patients were included during study period.

Results

A total of 203 patients were included in study with mean age of 49.5 years. Approximately, 70% (142) were male. Sensitivity of CCHR for predicting positive CT finding in the present study sample was 68% and specificity was 42.5%.

Conclusion

Canadian CT head rule is a useful tool in the Emergency Department for predicting the requirement of CT in patients with MHI. Canadian CT head rule can reduce the number of CT scans ordered following MHI in ED, thus improving the healthcare costs.

How to cite this article

Reddy A, Poonthottathil F, Jonnakuti R, Thomas R. Efficacy of the Canadian CT Head Rule in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Minor Head Injury. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(2):148–151.

Keywords

Canadian CT head rule
Efficacy
Emergency medicine
Minor head injuries
==== Body
pmcHighlights

The Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) is a useful tool in the Emergency Department for predicting the requirement of computed tomography (CT) in patients with minor head injury (MHI). Canadian CT head rule can reduce the number of CT scans ordered following MHI in the Emergency Department, thus improving the healthcare costs.

Introduction

Background

One of the most frequent reasons, people seek post-injury medical attention is a head injury. Most head injuries are relatively minor; however, there is ongoing debate regarding the best way to assess and care for this large patient population. Intracranial hematoma is a common cause of death and disability in patients with head injury.1–4 In patients with head injury, recommendations vary from routine admission with CT scan or routine CT scan with selective admission. Approximately, 84% of head traumas are minor head injuries (MHIs).5

Minor head injury is defined as a patient with a history of loss of consciousness, amnesia, or disorientation and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13–15.6

While the majority of patients with mild head injuries can be monitored and discharged without any problems, a tiny percentage worsen and need to have an intracranial hemorrhage, which needs to be surgically repaired. In order to effectively treat these patients, early intracranial hemorrhage detection using CT and early surgery are crucial.7,8

A more targeted application of this costly, high-tech investigation for individuals with mild head injuries could result in significant savings on medical expenses.

Since the development of CT in 1974, there has been a dearth of appropriate guidelines and methodologically weak and inconclusive studies that attempted to develop guidelines. Consequently, there is an obvious need for a reliable and valid guideline that would enable physicians to use CT more selectively without compromising the care they provide to patients with MHIs.9,10

So, the CCHR, which is an accurate, reliable, and clinically sensible decision rule for use of CT in patients with MHI has been developed.

Goals of this investigation: To estimate the efficacy of CCHR in patients with MHI. To assess association of GCS and structural abnormality.

Materials and Methods

Study Design and Setting

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study from May 2018 to October 2019 in the Department of Emergency Medicine, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Thiruvalla, Kerala. Whenever a trauma patient arrives in the Emergency Department, they are triaged and assigned a priority level as per ATLS protocols. The CCHR is applied to patients with MHIs (GCS 13–15) after initial stabilization and it is ascertained, if they require a non-contrast CT head and imaging is done. For those who do not require CT head as per the CCHR are excluded from the study. After imaging the patients who have a positive finding on CT head such as fracture calvarium or IC bleed are admitted and followed up if they underwent any neurosurgical intervention such as external ventricular drainage and decompressive craniectomy, those with no findings in CT head are discharged from the hospital. A total of 203 patients were included during study period.

Selection of Participants

Patients with age ≥16 years with head injury having GCS between 13 and 15 were included. Patients using any anticoagulants or with bleeding disorder or with acute neurological deficit or injury >24 hours old were excluded. The study tools used were CCHR, Head CT, and semistructured pro forma. The study variables included age, sex, chronic conditions, GCS score, vomiting, anticoagulant use, alcohol intoxication (serum alcohol level > 80 mg/dL), and arrival by emergency medical services (EMS).

Results

Of the total 203 sample population with range between 18 and 93 years of which 150 (73.9%) were <65 years and 53 (26.1%) were >65 years. Having mean age of 49.5 years. A total of 142 (70%) were male and 61 (30%) were female.

In the study sample, percentage of population in dangerous mechanism of injury was 28.6% (58), vomiting (≥2 episodes) was 14.8% (30), H/O retrograde amnesia 10.85% (22), ENT bleed 29.1% (59), hemotympanum 4.4% (9), Raccoon eyes 14.8% (30), Battles's sign 0.5% (1), depressed skull fracture 1.5% (30), and neurological clinical features 39.4% (80) (Table 1).

Table 1 Association of CT with selected variables

	CT	χ2	p-value	
No	Yes	
Count	Percent	Count	Percent	
Dangerous mechanism of injury	
  No	65	44.8	80	55.2	0.8	0.370	
  Yes	22	37.9	36	62.1			
Number of episodes of vomiting	
  No	76	43.9	97	56.1	0.55	0.458	
  Yes	11	36.7	19	63.3			
History of retrograde amnesia	
  No	85	47.0	96	53.0	11.49	p < 0.01	
  Yes	2	9.1	20	90.9			
ENT bleed	
  No	81	56.3	63	43.8	36.29	p < 0.01	
  Yes	6	10.2	53	89.8			
Hemotympanum	
  No	87	44.8	107	55.2	7.06**	0.008	
  Yes	0	0.0	9	100.0			
Raccoon eyes	
  No	78	45.1	95	54.9	2.38	0.123	
  Yes	9	30.0	21	70.0			
Cerebrospinal fluid leakage from ear or nose	
  No	87	42.9	116	57.1	–	–	
  Yes	0	0.0	0	0.0			
Battle's sign	
  No	87	43.1	115	56.9	0.75	0.385	
  Yes	0	0.0	1	100.0			
Depressed skull fracture	
  No	87	43.5	113	56.5	2.28	0.131	
  Yes	0	0.0	3	100.0			
Neurological clinical features	
  No	59	48.0	64	52.0	3.33	0.068	
  Yes	28	35.0	52	65.0			
**Significant at 0.01 level

In the present study, sample of 203, percentage of patients with GCS 13–15 was 9.45 (19), 19.75 (40), and 70.9% (144), respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of GCS based on CT

GCS	CT	χ2	p-value	
Negative findings	Positive findings	
Count	Percent	Count	Percent	
13	1	5.3	18	94.7	24.36	p < 0.01	
14	9	22.5	31	77.5			
15	77	53.5	67	46.5			

Of the 203 sample population, who underwent CT; 57.1% (116) has positive CT findings, i.e, cranial bone fractures are the most common finding followed by Subdural hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral contusion, pneumocephalus, and intra- cerebral bleed; 42.9% (87) has normal CT findings (Table 2).

Association of CT Findings with Patient Presenting Features

Of these variables, retrograde amnesia, ENT bleed (p < 0.01), and hemotympanum (p = 0.008) have significant correlation with positive CT findings.

Neurological features especially post-traumatic seizures (6), pupillary abnormality (4) was 100% sensitive for positive CT findings.

Percentage of positive CT findings with depressed skull fracture (3) and Batlle's sign (1) was 100% (Table 1).

Comparison of GCS Based on CT

Of the total 203 patients who underwent CT scan, 53.5% (77) have GCS of 15, 22.5% (9) have GCS of 14, 5.3% (1) has GCS 13 showed negative CT findings. Positive CT findings (116) have been in 46.55 (67) in patients with GCS 15, 77.5% (31) with GCS 14 and 94.7% (18) with GCS 13 (Table 2).

Of the 203 patients in study sample, 4.9% (10) of patients underwent neurosurgical intervention, of which one patient has GCS 15, 6 have GCS of 14 and 3 patients had GCS of 13 with a p-value 0.006 (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of GCS based on neurosurgical intervention done in patients

GCS	Neurosurgical intervention done in patients	χ2	p-value	
No	Yes	
Count	Percent	Count	Percent	
13	15	83.3	3	16.7	10.34**	0.006	
14	25	80.6	6	19.4			
15	66	98.5	1	1.5			
**Significant at 0.01 level

Efficacy of Canadian CT Head Rule

A total of 8.6% (10) patients underwent neurosurgical intervention, i.e., evacuation of hematoma or elevation of depressed cranial bone fractures of 116 patients who have positive CT findings.

Of the total 203 patients who underwent CT scan, positive CT finding seen in 116 patients of which 79 were of high-risk criteria and 37 were moderate risk criteria (Table 4).

Table 4 Efficacy of CCHR in patients with minor head injury

CCHR	Computed tomography report	Total	
Positive finding	Negative finding	
High risk	79	50	129	
Moderate	37	37	74	
Total	116	87	203	

Sensitivity of CCHR for predicting positive CT finding in the present study sample was 68%, specificity was 42.5%, positive predictive value was 61.2%, and negative predictive value was 50%.

Discussion

The mean age distribution in the present study was 49.5 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 20.6 years. This finding corresponds with a study in which mean age distribution was 47 years with SD of 19.68 years,11 where another study showed mean age distribution as 41 years (SD = 20.5) which is younger age group compared to our study.12

In the present study, male predominance was observed. Similarly, male predominance was observed in another study done by Anish et al. and Smits et al.13–15

The most common mode of injury in the present study was road traffic accidents (RTA), i.e., 54.6%. This finding corresponds to the similar results (56%) in a study done in India.16 Other studies also show the similar predominance.17–19

The GCS distribution of present study sample was 70.9% (144) with GCS 15; 19.75% (40) with GCS 14 and 9.45% (19) with GCS 13. Similar GCS distribution seen in a study done by Papa et al. in UK and Thiruppathy and Muthukumar in India.20,21

The most common finding was cranial bone fractures which correlate with the study done in Saudi Arabia and Netherlands.22,23

In the present study, CCHR showed a sensitivity of 68.1%, this corresponds to the sensitivity of 66.67% study done by Arab et al. in Saudi Arabia. Specificity of the 42.5% which corresponds to the specificity of 43.36% in a study done in China, another study showed a higher specificity than a study done by Papa et al.20

Percentage of patients underwent neurosurgical intervention in the present study was 4.9% of 203 patients. Another study done in India by Thiruppathy and Muthukumar, showed 7% of patients underwent neurosurgical intervention. Other studies showed lesser percent of patients underwent intervention 2.1 and 2.6% done by Bouida et al. and Smits et al., respectively.14,24

Of 203 patients, 116 have positive CT findings, of which 57.8% had a GCS of 15, 26.7% had GCS of 14 and 15.5% had a GCS of 13. This corresponds to the GCS distribution of study done in Netherlands, which has the 64.1, 23.7, and 12.2% for GCS of 15, 14, and 13, respectively.23

Conclusion

Canadian CT head rule is a useful tool in the Emergency Department for predicting the requirement of CT in patients with MHI. Decrease in GCS directly related to positive CT findings. Glasgow Coma Scale, post-traumatic seizures, pupillary abnormality, depressed skull fracture, and Battle's sign have significant correlation with positive CT findings. Canadian CT head rule can reduce the number of CT scans ordered following MHI in the Emergency Department, thus improving the healthcare costs.

Limitations and Recommendations

This is a single-center study conducted on 203 subjects with MHI in the Emergency Department. It needs to be validated in other settings in bigger population. Patients with history of Seizure disorder, use of antiplatelets/anticoagulants, TBI of >24 hours duration were excluded from the study as it will interfere with the accuracy of this method and hence needs further studies after including these people.

Orcid

Ashok Reddy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2551-7957

Fawaz Poonthottathil https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9468-9886

Rani Jonnakuti https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0271-9995

Roney Thomas https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7206-7667

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None
==== Refs
References

1. Livingston DH Lavery RF Passannante MR Skurmick JH Baker S Fabian TC et al. Emergency department discharge of patients with a negative cranial computed tomography scan after minimal head injury Ann Surg 2000 232 1 126 132 10.1097/00000658-200007000-00018 10862205
2. Nair S Rajagopal R Hyperemia causing delayed recovery in traumatic brain injury Indian J Crit Care Med 2017 21 4 232 234 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_346_16 28515610
3. Ray B Samaddar DP Todi SK Ramakrishnan N George John G Ramasubban S Quality indicators for ICU: ISCCM guidelines for ICUs in India Indian J Crit Care Med 2009 13 4 173 206 20436688 20436688
4. Livingston DH Loder PA Koziol J Hunt CD The use of CT scanning to triage patients requiring admission following minimal head injury J Trauma 1991 31 483 489 2020033 2020033
5. Stiell IG Lesiuk H Wells GA McKnight RD Brison R Clement C et al. The Canadian CT head rule study for patients with minor head injury: Rationale, objectives, and methodology for phase I (derivation) Ann Emerg Med 2001 38 2 160 169 10.1067/mem.2001.116796 11468612
6. Shackford SR Wald SL Ross SE Cogbill TH Hoyt DB Morris JA et al. The clinical utility of computed tomographic scanning and neurologic examination in the management of patients with minor head injuries J Trauma 1992 33 3 385 394 10.1097/00005373-199209000-00009 1404507
7. Galbraith S Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis in traumatic intracranial haematoma Br Med J 1976 1 6023 1438 1449 10.1136/bmj.1.6023.1438 986221
8. Marshall LF Toole BM Bowers SA The national traumatic coma data bank. Part 2: Patients who talk and deteriorate: Implications for treatment J Neurosurg 1983 59 2 285 288 10.3171/jns.1983.59.2.0285 6864295
9. Laupacis A Sekar N Stiell IG Clinical prediction rules: A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards JAMA 1997 277 6 488 494 9020274 9020274
10. Stiell IG Wells GA Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine Ann Emerg Med 1999 33 4 437 447 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70309-4 10092723
11. Yang XF Meng YY Wen L Wang H Criteria for performing cranial computed tomography for Chinese patients with mild traumatic brain injury: Canadian computed tomography head rule or new Orleans criteria? J Craniofac Surg 2017 28 6 1594 1597 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003759 28692515
12. Albers CE von Allmen M Evangelopoulos DS Zisakis AK Zimmermann H Exadaktylos AK What is the incidence of intracranial bleeding in patients with mild traumatic brain injury? A retrospective study in 3088 Canadian CT head rule patients Biomed Res Int 2013 2013 453978 10.1155/2013/453978 23936802
13. Anish TSN Sreelakshmi PRN Medhavan S Babu S Sugathan S Efficacy of Canadian computed tomography head rule in predicting the need for a computed-axial tomography scans among patients with suspected head injuries Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2012 2 3 163 166 10.4103/2229-5151.100904 23181211
14. Smits M Dippel DWJ de Haan GG Dekker HM Vos PE Kool DR et al. External validation of the Canadian CT head rule and the new Orleans criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury JAMA 2005 294 12 1519 1525 10.1001/jama.294.12.1519 16189365
15. Nupur P Ashok M Kumar VS Jhavar k Sampath S Devi BI Magnitude of pedestrian head injuries and fatalities in Bangalore, south India: A retrospective study from an apex neurotrauma center Indian J Med Res 2012 136 6 1039 1043 23391802 23391802
16. Syed AT Lone NA Wani MA Bhat AS Clinical management of patients with minor head injuries Int J Health Sci 2007 1 1 131 140 21475463
17. Road Accidents in India 2021 Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. Available from: https://morth.nic.in/road-accidents-india-2021
18. Faul M Xu L Wald MM Coronado VG Traumatic brain injury in the United States: Emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. Bethesda, MD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 2010 7 17
19. Stiell IG Wells GA Vandemheen K Clement C Lesiuk H Laupacis A et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury Lancet 2001 357 9266 1391 1396 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04561-x 11356436
20. Papa L Stiell IG Clement CM Pawlowicz A Wolfram A Braga C et al. Performance of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria for predicting any traumatic intracranial injury on computed tomography in a United States Level I trauma center Aca Emerg Med 2012 19 1 2 10 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01247.x
21. Thiruppathy SP Muthukumar N Mild head injury: Revisited Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2004 146 10 1075 1082; discussion 1082–1083 10.1007/s00701-004-0335-z 15744844
22. Arab AF Ahmed ME Ahmed AE Hussein MA Khankan AA Alokaili RN et al. Accuracy of Canadian CT head rule in predicting positive findings on CT of the head of patients after mild head injury in a large trauma centre in Saudi Arabia Neuroradiol J 2015 28 6 591 597 10.1177/1971400915610699 26471399
23. Foks KA van den Brand CL Lingsma HF van der Naalt J Jacobs B Eline de Jong et al. External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: Prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands BMJ 2018 362 k3527 10.1136/bmj.k3527 30143521
24. Bouida W Marghli S Souissi S Ksibi H Methammem M Haguiga H et al. Prediction value of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria for positive head CT scan and acute neurosurgical procedures in minor head trauma: A multicenter external validation study Ann Emerg Med 2013 61 5 521 527 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.07.016 22921164
