OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to prospectively investigate the influence of oral, IV, and oral and IV contrast media on the information provided by MDCT at standard and simulated low radiation doses in adults suspected of having acute appendicitis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-one consecutive patients (80 women, 51 men; age range, 18-87 years; mean age, 37 years) suspected of having appendicitis were randomly assigned to either ingest or not ingest iodinated contrast material. Thereafter, all patients underwent IV unenhanced and enhanced abdominopelvic MDCT with a 4 x 2.5 mm collimation at 120 kVp and 100 mAs(eff). Dose reduction corresponding to 30 mAs(eff) was simulated. Two radiologists independently read scans during separate sessions, assessed appendix visualization, and proposed a diagnosis (i.e., appendicitis or an alternative diagnosis). The final diagnosis was based on either surgical findings or clinical follow-up. Data were analyzed by factorial analysis of multiple correspondences followed by an ascending hierarchic classification method. RESULTS: Factorial analysis and ascending hierarchic classification revealed that, in terms of diagnostic correctness, reader influence predominated over the influence of IV and oral contrast media use and radiation dose but that correctness was also influenced by the patient's sex (p = 0.048) and was lower in cases of alternative diseases (p < 0.001). Visualization of the appendix depended predominantly on the reader rather than on the use of IV, oral, or oral and IV contrast agents or on radiation dose. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic correctness is much more influenced by the reader than by the use of contrast medium (oral, IV, or both) or of simulated low-radiation-dose technique.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to prospectively investigate the influence of oral, IV, and oral and IV contrast media on the information provided by MDCT at standard and simulated low radiation doses in adults suspected of having acute appendicitis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-one consecutive patients (80 women, 51 men; age range, 18-87 years; mean age, 37 years) suspected of having appendicitis were randomly assigned to either ingest or not ingest iodinated contrast material. Thereafter, all patients underwent IV unenhanced and enhanced abdominopelvic MDCT with a 4 x 2.5 mm collimation at 120 kVp and 100 mAs(eff). Dose reduction corresponding to 30 mAs(eff) was simulated. Two radiologists independently read scans during separate sessions, assessed appendix visualization, and proposed a diagnosis (i.e., appendicitis or an alternative diagnosis). The final diagnosis was based on either surgical findings or clinical follow-up. Data were analyzed by factorial analysis of multiple correspondences followed by an ascending hierarchic classification method. RESULTS: Factorial analysis and ascending hierarchic classification revealed that, in terms of diagnostic correctness, reader influence predominated over the influence of IV and oral contrast media use and radiation dose but that correctness was also influenced by the patient's sex (p = 0.048) and was lower in cases of alternative diseases (p < 0.001). Visualization of the appendix depended predominantly on the reader rather than on the use of IV, oral, or oral and IV contrast agents or on radiation dose. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic correctness is much more influenced by the reader than by the use of contrast medium (oral, IV, or both) or of simulated low-radiation-dose technique.
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
Authors: Frederick Thurston Drake; Rafael Alfonso; Puneet Bhargava; Carlos Cuevas; Manjiri K Dighe; Michael G Florence; Morris G Johnson; Gregory J Jurkovich; Scott R Steele; Rebecca Gaston Symons; Richard C Thirlby; David R Flum Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Douglas H Sheafor; Mark D Kovacs; Philip Burchett; Melissa M Picard; Brenton Davis; Andrew D Hardie Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 3.469