Literature DB >> 15278712

Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast.

Ly N Huynh1, Bret F Coughlin, Jeannette Wolfe, Fidela Blank, Steve Y Lee, Howard A Smithline.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess various time intervals during patient encounters involving unenhanced (NECT) versus oral-contrast-enhanced (CECT) abdominopelvic (A/P) CT performed in the emergency department (ED) on adult patients presenting with acute abdominal pain. Computerized patient order entry and administrative data as well as scans themselves were retrospectively evaluated at a high-volume (107,000 visits per annum) regional medical center urban ED for a period of 30 consecutive days. All adult patients who had CT of abdomen and pelvis for abdominal pain during the 30 days of the study period were included. Data collected included demographic information, time of registration, time of first encounter in the ED, time of CT order, clinical indication for scan, time of scan, time of disposition (i.e., discharge or admit), and final disposition. Patients were excluded if they were less than 16 years old, pregnant, or met criteria for major trauma and evaluation in the trauma suite. Patients were also excluded from analysis if they received more than one scan on the same day (3 patients). Of 183 patients, 102 underwent NECT and 81 CECT. Some of the patients who underwent NECT had urinary colic. Among patients who did not have urinary colic there is a statistically significant difference in the median time intervals between: (1) patient arrival in the ED and evaluation by a physician (NECT 57 min, CECT 84 min, P<0.001); (2) patient exam by the physician and the time the A/P CT was ordered (NECT 35 min, CECT 63 min, P<0.01); (3) receipt of the CT order and the time of the scan (NECT 104 min, CECT 172 min, P<0.001); and (4) time of arrival in ED and disposition (NECT 358 min, CECT 599 min, P<0.001). There are significant time interval differences between CECT and NECT during patient encounters involving adults presenting with abdominal pain to the ED. The differences are greater than the amount of time allotted for opacification of small bowel (90 min). Baseline data such as these may prove useful in assessing the efficacy of scan techniques and improving resource utilization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15278712     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-004-0348-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  18 in total

Review 1.  Helical CT in the evaluation of the acute abdomen.

Authors:  R M Gore; F H Miller; F S Pereles; V Yaghmai; J W Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Using CT to evaluate the acute abdomen: spectrum of urinary pathology.

Authors:  G L Johnson; E K Fishman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Unenhanced helical CT for evaluating acute abdominal pain: a little more cost, a lot more information.

Authors:  R E Mindelzun; R B Jeffrey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Computed tomography in the emergency department.

Authors:  J Sosna; B S Slasky; J Bar-Ziv
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 2.469

5.  Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis.

Authors:  M J Lane; D S Katz; B A Ross; T L Clautice-Engle; R E Mindelzun; R B Jeffrey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Frequent overcrowding in U.S. emergency departments.

Authors:  R Derlet; J Richards; R Kravitz
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.451

7.  Scanning techniques in computed body tomography.

Authors:  R H Kirkpatrick; J Wittenberg; D L Schaffer; E B Black; D A Hall; B S Braitman; J T Ferrucci
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Positive and negative contrast agents in CT evaluation of the abdomen and pelvis.

Authors:  D J Hamlin; F A Burgener
Journal:  J Comput Tomogr       Date:  1981-06

9.  Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT.

Authors:  A J Malone; C R Wolf; A S Malmed; B F Melliere
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Computed tomography for blunt abdominal trauma in the ED: a prospective study.

Authors:  J R Richards; R W Derlet
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 2.469

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Multidetector CT in emergency radiology: acute and generalized non-traumatic abdominal pain.

Authors:  Pasquale Paolantonio; Marco Rengo; Riccardo Ferrari; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients.

Authors:  Steve Y Lee; Bret Coughlin; Jeannette M Wolfe; Joseph Polino; Fidela S Blank; Howard A Smithline
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2006-04-21

Review 3.  Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Chau Hung Lee; Benjamin Haaland; Arul Earnest; Cher Heng Tan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-27       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Eliminating routine oral contrast use for CT in the emergency department: impact on patient throughput and diagnosis.

Authors:  Robin B Levenson; Marc A Camacho; Erin Horn; Amina Saghir; Daniel McGillicuddy; Leon D Sanchez
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2012-06-29

5.  Diagnosing acute appendicitis using a nonoral contrast CT protocol in patients with a BMI of less than 25.

Authors:  Vijay Ramalingam; David D B Bates; Karen Buch; Jennifer Uyeda; Kathy M Zhao; Lindsey A Storer; Marisa B Roberts; Christina A Lebedis; Jorge A Soto; Stephan W Anderson
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-07-08

6.  Utility of CT oral contrast administration in the emergency department of a quaternary oncology hospital: diagnostic implications, turnaround times, and assessment of ED physician ordering.

Authors:  Corey T Jensen; Katherine J Blair; Ott Le; Jia Sun; Wei Wei; Brinda Rao Korivi; Ajaykumar C Morani; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-11

7.  The impact of introducing a no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) pathway on radiology turn around times, emergency department length of stay, and patient safety.

Authors:  Seyed Amirhossein Razavi; Jamlik-Omari Johnson; Michael T Kassin; Kimberly E Applegate
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2014-06-06

8.  CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast.

Authors:  Brian C Hill; Scott C Johnson; Emily K Owens; Jennifer L Gerber; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Effect of oral contrast for abdominal computed tomography on emergency department length of stay.

Authors:  Jeremiah D Schuur; Grant Chu; Andrew Sucov
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2009-10-20

10.  Does limiting oral contrast decrease emergency department length of stay?

Authors:  Christy L Hopkins; Troy Madsen; Zachary Foy; Michielle Reina; Erik Barton
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2012-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.