Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

eFAST 2.0: Refining an Integral Trauma Exam

By Nathaniel Leu, MD, MS; Daniel Mantuani, MD, MPH; Maximiliano Sobrero, MD, MS; Arun Nagnev, MD | on September 9, 2022 | 0 Comment
Sound Advice
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Alternatively, in the blunt trauma patient with hemodynamic compromise, the thorax and abdomen should be the first two boxes evaluated by eFAST. This approach can clarify the need for early tube thoracostomy in the setting of massive hemothorax/pneumothorax or help guide the trauma team to pursue operative stabilization if massive hemoperitoneum is noted. In contrast, significant hemopericardium following blunt trauma is an uncommon and often non-survivable event, and thus the pericardium should be scanned after the other two boxes are rapidly and thoroughly evaluated.7

You Might Also Like
  • EFAST—Extended Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma
  • Evidence Behind Focused Sonography for Trauma During Pregnancy
  • ACEP Clinical Policy: Blunt Abdominal Trauma
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 41 – No 09 – September 2022

The eFAST exam is highly specific for free fluid in the abdomen and highly sensitive for pneumothorax, hemothorax, and pericardial effusion.8–10 Therefore, most emergency physicians utilize the eFAST in unstable patients to decide whether or not the patient needs rapid operative stabilization or can undergo further CT imaging.

2. Goal-Directed Communication

The eFAST examination findings must be properly communicated when working alongside your trauma colleagues. There should be bidirectional communication with the trauma team leader to facilitate appropriate and timely intervention while always taking into account the patient’s clinical status. The eFAST is not a binary test—the interpretations are nuanced and the assessment of the “three boxes” should be interpreted in real time. Communication to the trauma team should be in a granular or detailed manner so that these results can properly be incorporated into the care of the patient.

When communicating these results to the trauma team, it is critical to interpret both positive and negative eFAST exams in the context of the patient’s clinical status. For example, in the patient with a blunt abdominal injury and a trace amount of free fluid in Morrison’s pouch, this source of bleeding is unlikely the cause of significant hypotension as the hemorrhagic volume needs to be much greater than the minimum 150 to 200mL required to be visualized on an eFAST.8 This is in contrast to advanced trauma life support (ATLS) hemorrhagic shock classifications where blood pressure would not typically lower until class III shock (1500–2000mL of blood loss).11 While this should be reported as a “positive” abdominal component of the eFAST examination for documentation purposes, it is imperative to communicate to the trauma team leader that this degree of free fluid in the abdomen does not clinically correlate with the patient’s hemodynamic instability. Alternative or concurrent injuries in the other two boxes (e.g., thorax or heart) or the possibility of an unstable pelvis/retroperitoneal injury or long bone injury and/or neurogenic shock should also be considered.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Topics: eFASTextended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (eFAST)Imaging & UltrasoundPOCUSthree box conceptTrauma & Injury

Related

  • ACEP’s October 2025 Poll: How Often Do You Read Your Own X-Rays?

    September 30, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Case Report: Rapid Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Dissection with POCUS

    June 11, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Employ a Trauma-Informed Approach to Care

    December 7, 2024 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “eFAST 2.0: Refining an Integral Trauma Exam”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603