Literature DB >> 16738930

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.

Steve Y Lee1, Bret Coughlin, Jeannette M Wolfe, Joseph Polino, Fidela S Blank, Howard A Smithline.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This prospective study compares the agreement of nonenhanced helical computed tomography (NECT) with oral contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in Emergency Department (ED) patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain undergoing CT were enrolled over a 13-month period using convenience sampling. Exclusion criteria included acute trauma, pregnancy, unstable patients, and patients suspected of having urinary calculi. Patients were scanned helically using 5-mm collimation before and approximately 90 min after oral contrast administration. Both exams were prospectively interpreted by different attending radiologists in a blinded fashion using an explicit data sheet specifying the presence or absence of 28 parameters relating to various common diagnoses.
RESULTS: The 118 patients had a mean age of 49 years, a male: female ratio of 7:13, and a median height, weight, and BMI of 166 cm, 80 kg, and 29, respectively. The most common indications for the study included appendicitis (32%) and diverticular disease (12%). Pain maximally localized to the right lower quadrant in 37% and the left lower quadrant in 21%. There were 21 patients that had significant disagreement of interpretations between NECT and CECT resulting in a simple agreement of 79% (95% CI: 70-87%). For specific radiologic parameters, agreement ranged from 77 to 100%. A post hoc agreement analysis was subsequently performed by two radiologists and only five paired scans were identified as discordant between the NECT and CECT. For only one of these patients did both radiologists agree that there was a definite discordant result between the two studies. A final unblinded consensus review demonstrated that much of the disagreement between the interpretations was related to interobserver variation.
CONCLUSION: There is 79% simple agreement between NECT and CECT in diagnosing various causes of acute abdominal pain in adult ED patients. Post hoc analysis indicates that a significant portion of the discordance was attributable to interobserver variability. This data suggests that NECT should be considered in adult ED patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16738930     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-006-0474-z

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


  29 in total

1.  Emergency department overcrowding following systematic hospital restructuring: trends at twenty hospitals over ten years.

Authors:  M J Schull; J P Szalai; B Schwartz; D A Redelmeier
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 2.  Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health.

Authors:  S Trzeciak; E P Rivers
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Thromboembolic disease: variability of interobserver agreement in the interpretation of CT venography with CT pulmonary angiography.

Authors:  K Garg; J L Kemp; P D Russ; A E Barón
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Interobserver variability in the detection of cervical-thoracic Hodgkin's disease by computed tomography.

Authors:  B D Fletcher; A S Glicksman; P Gieser
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Prospective comparison of helical CT with angiography in pulmonary embolism: global and selective vascular territory analysis. Interobserver agreement.

Authors:  Yolanda Ruiz; Paloma Caballero; José Luis Caniego; Alfonsa Friera; María José Olivera; David Tagarro; Rodolfo Alvarez-Sala
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-09-19       Impact factor: 5.315

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

Authors:  Ly N Huynh; Bret F Coughlin; Jeannette Wolfe; Fidela Blank; Steve Y Lee; Howard A Smithline
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2004-05-29

9.  Evaluation of an emergency radiology quality assurance program at a level I trauma center: abdominal and pelvic CT studies.

Authors:  Luke S Yoon; Andrew H Haims; James A Brink; Reuven Rabinovici; Howard P Forman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography.

Authors:  R C Smith; A T Rosenfield; K A Choe; K R Essenmacher; M Verga; M G Glickman; R C Lange
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Oral contrast for CT in patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal and pelvic pain: what should be its current role?

Authors:  Ania Z Kielar; Michael N Patlas; Douglas S Katz
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-05-11

Review 2.  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

3.  An evaluation of the use of oral contrast media in abdominopelvic CT.

Authors:  Erica Lauren Buttigieg; Karen Borg Grima; Kelvin Cortis; Sandro Galea Soler; Francis Zarb
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-07-17       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.  Computerized tomography of the acute left upper quadrant pain.

Authors:  Temel Tirkes; Zachary Ballenger; Scott D Steenburg; Daniel J Altman; Kumaresan Sandrasegaran
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-05-26

Review 6.  Small bowel diverticulitis: an imaging review of an uncommon entity.

Authors:  Darren L Transue; Tarek N Hanna; Haris Shekhani; Saurabh Rohatgi; Faisal Khosa; Jamlik-Omari Johnson
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-11-04

7.  Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings.

Authors:  Stefania Tamburrini; Arturo Brunetti; Michèle Brown; Claude Sirlin; Giovanna Casola
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-12-16       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  Evaluation of a low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Alexandra Platon; Helmi Jlassi; Olivier T Rutschmann; Christoph D Becker; Francis R Verdun; Pascal Gervaz; Pierre-Alexandre Poletti
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.