Volumetric Markers of Body Composition May Improve Personalized Prediction of Major Arterial Bleeding After Pelvic Fracture: A Secondary Analysis of the Baltimore CT Prediction Model Cohort
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2021
Volumetric Markers of Body Composition May Improve Personalized Prediction of Major Arterial Bleeding After Pelvic Fracture: A Secondary Analysis of the Baltimore CT Prediction Model Cohort
The Baltimore computed tomography (CT) prediction model for bleeding pelvic fractures is a multivariable decision tool that predicts angiopositivity from pelvic hematoma volume, active arterial bleeding, fracture patterns, and atherosclerosis. We hypothesized that quantitative markers of body composition and frailty could further improve model performance.
Methods:
This work is a retrospective secondary analysis of a single institution cohort used in the development of the Baltimore CT prediction model. The cohort includes 115 consecutive patients that underwent admission contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis for blunt trauma with pelvic ring disruption followed by conventional angiography. Major arterial injury requiring angioembolization served as the outcome variable. Angioembolization was required in 73/115 patients (63% of the cohort). Average age was 46.9 years (±SD 20.4). Body composition measurements were determined as 2-dimensional (2D) or 3-dimensional (3D) parameters and included mid-L3 trabecular bone attenuation, abdominal visceral fat area or volume, and percent muscle fat fraction (as a marker of sarcopenia) measured using segmentation and histogram analysis.
Results:
Models incorporating 2D (Model B) or 3D markers (model C) of body composition showed improvement over the original Baltimore model (model A) in all parameters of performance, quality, and fit (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUC], Akaike information criterion, Brier score, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and adjusted-R2). Area under the receiver-operating curve increased from 0.83 (A), to 0.86 (B), and 0.88 (C). The greatest improvement was seen with 3D parameters.
Conclusion:
Once automated, quantitative visualization tools providing “free” 3D body composition information can be expected to improve personalized precision diagnostics, outcome prediction, and decision support in patients with bleeding pelvic fractures.
YoonWKimJKJeongYYSeoJJParkJGKangHK. Pelvic arterial hemorrhage in patients with pelvic fractures: detection with contrast-enhanced CT. RadioGraphics2004;24(6):1591–1605. doi:10.1148/rg.246045028
2.
DemetriadesDKaraiskakisMToutouzasKAloKVelmahosGChanL. Pelvic fractures: epidemiology and predictors of associated abdominal injuries and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195(1):1–10. doi:10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01197-3
3.
SathyAKStarrAJSmithWR, et al.The effect of pelvic fracture on mortality after trauma: an analysis of 63,000 trauma patients. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(12):2803–2810. http://jbjs.org/content/91/12/2803.abstract
4.
MillerPRMoorePSMansellEMeredithJWChangMC. External fixation or arteriogram in bleeding pelvic fracture: initial therapy guided by markers of arterial hemorrhage. J Trau Acute Care Surg. 2003;54(3):437–443.
5.
DreizinDBodanapallyUMascarenhasD, et al.Quantitative MDCT assessment of binder effects after pelvic ring disruptions using segmented pelvic haematoma volumes and multiplanar caliper measurements. Europ Radiol. 2018;28(9):3953–3962.
CostantiniTWCoimbraRHolcombJB, et al.Current management of hemorrhage from severe pelvic fractures: results of an American association for the surgery of trauma multi-institutional trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(5):717–725.
8.
DreizinD. Commentary on “multidetector CT in vascular injuries resulting from pelvic fractures”. RadioGraphics. 2019;39(7):2130–2133.
DreizinDMuneraF. Multidetector CT for penetrating torso trauma: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;277(2):338–355.
11.
AlabousiAPatlasMNSneNKatzDS. Is oral contrast necessary for multidetector computed tomography imaging of patients with acute abdominal pain?Can Assoc Radiol J. 2015;66(4):318–322.
12.
LandryBAPatlasMNFaidiSCoatesANicolaouS. Are we missing traumatic bowel and mesenteric injuries?Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016;67(4):420–425.
13.
DreizinDBodanapallyUKMuneraF. MDCT of complications and common postoperative findings following penetrating torso trauma. Emerg Radiol. 2015;22(5):553–563.
14.
QamarSREvansDGibneyB, et al.Emergent comprehensive imaging of the major trauma patient: a new paradigm for improved clinical decision-making. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2020. doi:10.1177/0846537120914247
15.
AndersonSWSotoJALuceyBCBurkePAHirschEFRheaJT. Blunt trauma: feasibility and clinical utility of pelvic CT angiography performed with 64–detector row CT. Radiology2008;246(2):410–419. doi:10.1148/radiol.2462070082
16.
CullinaneDCSchillerHJZielinskiMD, et al.Eastern association for the surgery of trauma practice management guidelines for hemorrhage in pelvic fracture—update and systematic review. J Traum Acute Care Surg. 2011;71(6):1850–1868. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31823dca9a
17.
DreizinDNasconeJDavisDL, et al.Can MDCT unmask instability in binder-stabilized pelvic ring disruptions. American J Roentgenol. 2016;207(6):1244–1251.
18.
BlackmoreCJurkovichGJLinnauKFCummingsPHofferEKRivaraFP. Assessment of volume of hemorrhage and outcome from pelvic fracture. Archi Surg. 2003;138(5):504–509. doi:10.1001/archsurg.138.5.504
19.
BraselKJPhamKYangHChristensenRWeigeltJA. Significance of contrast extravasation in patients with pelvic fracture. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2007;62(5):1149–1152. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3180479827
SheridanMBlackmoreCLinnauKHofferELomoschitzFJurkovichG. Can CT predict the source of arterial hemorrhage in patients with pelvic fractures. Emerg Radiol. 2002;9(4):188–194.
22.
DreizinDBodanapallyUKNeerchalNTiradaNPatlasMHerskovitsE. Volumetric analysis of pelvic hematomas after blunt trauma using semi-automated seeded region growing segmentation: a method validation study. Abdom Radiol. 2016;41(11):2203–2208.
23.
DreizinDLiangYDentJAkhterNMascarenhasDScaleaTM. Diagnostic value of CT contrast extravasation for major arterial injury after pelvic fracture: a meta-analysis. Ameri J Emerg Med. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.11.038
DreizinDBodanapallyUBoscakA, et al.CT prediction model for major arterial injury after blunt pelvic ring disruption. Radiology. 2018;287(3):1061–1069.
26.
BatteyTWDreizinDBodanapallyUK, et al.A comparison of segmented abdominopelvic fluid volumes with conventional CT signs of abdominal compartment syndrome in a trauma population. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(7):2648–2655.
27.
FoxCSMassaroJMHoffmannU, et al.Abdominal visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue compartments. Circulation2007;116(1):39–48.
28.
BraunschweigCASheeanPMPetersonSJ, et al.Exploitation of diagnostic computed tomography scans to assess the impact of nutrition support on body composition changes in respiratory failure patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014;38(7):880–885.
29.
PickhardtPJPoolerBDLauderTdel RioAMBruceRJBinkleyN. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(8):588–595.
30.
PickhardtPLauderTPoolerB, et al.Effect of IV contrast on lumbar trabecular attenuation at routine abdominal CT: correlation with DXA and implications for opportunistic osteoporosis screening. Osteoporosis Int. 2016;27(1):147–152.
31.
FairchildBWebbTPXiangQTarimaSBraselKJ. Sarcopenia and frailty in elderly trauma patients. World J Surg. 2015;39(2):373–379.
32.
OskutisMQLauermanMHKuferaJA, et al.Are frailty markers associated with serious thoracic and spinal injuries among motor vehicle crash occupants?J Traum Acute Care Surge. 2016;81(1):156–161.
33.
KaplanSJPhamTNArbabiS, et al.Association of radiologic indicators of frailty with 1-year mortality in older trauma patients: opportunistic screening for sarcopenia and osteopenia. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(2):e164604–e164604.
34.
BoutinRDBamrungchartSBateniCP, et al.CT of patients with hip fracture: muscle size and attenuation help predict mortality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W208–W215.
35.
ShashatyMGKalkanEBellamySL, et al.Computed tomography-defined abdominal adiposity is associated with acute kidney injury in critically ill trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(7):1619–1628.
36.
UfukFHerekDYükselD.Diagnosis of sarcopenia in head and neck computed tomography: cervical muscle mass as a strong indicator of sarcopenia. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;12(3):317–324. doi:10.21053/ceo.2018.01613
37.
LauermanMHRaithelMKuferaJ, et al.Comparison of individual and composite radiographic markers of frailty in trauma. Injury2019;50(1):149–155.
38.
DreizinDZhouYZhangYTiradaNYuilleAL. Performance of a deep learning algorithm for automated segmentation and quantification of traumatic pelvic hematomas on CT. J Digit Imag. 2020;33(1):243–251.
39.
ZhouYDreizinDLiYZhangZWangYYuilleA. Multi-scale attentional network for multi-focal segmentation of active bleed after pelvic fractures. In: SukHILiuMYanPLianC, eds. Machine learning in medical imaging. MLMI 2019. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 11861. Cham: Springer; 2019. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-32692-0_53
40.
DreizinDZhouYChenT, et al.Deep learning-based quantitative visualization and measurement of extraperitoneal hematoma volumes in patients with pelvic fractures: potential role in personalized forecasting and decision support. J Trau Acute Care Surge. 2020;88(3):425–433. doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000002566
41.
DreizinDGoldmannFChenTUnberathM.Automated CT pelvic fracture severity grading with deep learning: association with clinical outcomes. Conference on Machine Intelligence in Medical Imaging (C-MIMI). Austin, TX, September22-23, 2019. SIIM.
42.
LeeHTroschelFMTajmirS, et al.Pixel-level deep segmentation: artificial intelligence quantifies muscle on computed tomography for body morphometric analysis. J Digit Imaging. 2017;30(4):487–498.
43.
WestonADKorfiatisPKlineTL, et al.Automated abdominal segmentation of CT scans for body composition analysis using deep learning. Radiology. 2019;290(3):669–679.
