Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug;85(2):271-274.
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001954.

Forced vital capacity less than 1: A mark for high-risk patients

Affiliations

Forced vital capacity less than 1: A mark for high-risk patients

Rachel Warner et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Rib fractures (RFx) continue to be a source of morbidity and mortality. A RFx care pathway has been used based on forced vital capacity (FVC). The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that deterioration of FVC to less than 1 after admission is a marker for high-risk patients and affects outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective study of patients enrolled in an RFx care pathway at a Level 1 trauma center from 2009 to 2014. All patients had an admission FVC greater than 1. 2 groups were analyzed: patients with a lowest inpatient FVC less than 1 (Group A) compared to patients with lowest inpatient FVC of 1 or greater (Group B). Complications [pneumonia, upgrade to the intensive care unit, readmission, and intubation] and demographics were examined. Patients without documented admission FVCs were excluded. p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: A total of 1,106 patients were analyzed (Group A, 187; Group B, 919). Patients whose FVC dropped less than 1 (Group A) had a higher complication rate [15% (Group A) vs 3.2% (Group B); p < 0.001]. Rates of pneumonia, readmission, unplanned upgrade, and intubation were all significantly higher in Group A [pneumonia: 9% (Group A) vs 1.4% (Group B), p < 0.001; readmission: 4% (Group A) vs 1.7% (Group B), p = 0.04; upgrade; 3.7% (Group A) vs 0.2% (Group B), p < 0.001; intubation: 1.6% (Group A) vs 0.1% (Group B), p = 0.02]. Hospital length of stay was longer in Group A [10 days (Group A) vs 4 days (Group B), p < 0.001].

Conclusions: Forced vital capacity predicts complications in patients with RFx. Patients whose FVC falls less than 1 during admission are at high risk for pulmonary complications. Daily FVC testing for patients admitted with RFx can predict outcomes. Forced vital capacity less than 1 should be considered as a marker for complications. Once FVC drops less than 1, patients should be considered for increased interventions. Even if the patient has not yet clinically deteriorated, consideration for higher level of care is warranted.

Level of evidence: Prognostic study, level III.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Rib fracture care pathway used in the study. PEP, positive expiratory pressure.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Inclusion criteria for statistical analysis. aFVC, admission FVC; pts, patients; inpt, inpatient.

References

    1. Ziegler DW, Agarwal NN. The morbidity and mortality of rib fractures. J Trauma. 1994;37(1):975–979. - PubMed
    1. Battle CE, Hutchings H, Evans PA. Risk factors that predict mortality in patients with blunt chest wall trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2012;43:8–17. - PubMed
    1. Flagel BT, Luchette FA, Reed RL, Esposito TJ, Davis KA, Santaniello JM, Gamelli RL. Half-a-dozen ribs: the breakpoint for mortality. Surgery. 2005; 138(4):717–723. - PubMed
    1. Lee RB, Bass SM, Morris JA Jr, Mackenzie EJ. Three or more rib fractures as an indicator for transfer to a Level I trauma center: a population-based study. J Trauma. 1990;30(6):689–694. - PubMed
    1. Bergeron E, Lavoie A, Clas D, Moore L, Ratte S, Tetreault S, Lemaire J, Martin M. Elderly trauma patients with rib fractures are at greater risk of death and pneumonia. J Trauma. 2003;54(3):478–485. - PubMed

MeSH terms