OBJECTIVE: To analyze the current practices of chest radiograph (CXR) prescription and their clinical impact. DESIGN: Prospective snapshot observational study (on RadioDay) combined with a survey. PATIENTS: Patients who were given a CXR on RadioDay. SETTING: One hundred four French intensive care units (ICUs). RESULTS: On RadioDay, 854 CXRs (in 804 patients) were ordered. For the "CXRs morning round," the prescription policy was declared to be "on-demand" (in 63 % of the ICUs), "daily routine only in mechanically ventilated patients (MV)" (30 %) or, less frequently, "daily routine in all patients" (7 %). When analyzing the two main local policies, as compared with "daily routine only in MV" ICUs, in "on-demand" ICUs: (1) fewer CXRs were ordered (0.6 ± 0.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 CXRs/patient, p < 0.001) with no increase in the rate of unscheduled CXRs (i.e., CXRs performed outside the morning round), and (2) individual CXRs were more often followed by a therapeutic intervention (which would not have occurred without the CXR): 34 vs. 25 % of the CXRs (p < 0.05). Last, in case of severe respiratory disease (low PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio), it is noteworthy that the clinical value of "on-demand" individual CXRs was still markedly higher than that of "daily routine" CXRs. CONCLUSION: Nearly two-thirds of the participating ICUs adopted the "on-demand" strategy of prescription, which was associated with a lower rate of CXRs with no increase in unscheduled CXRs and was of higher clinical value than a "daily routine in MV" strategy. Importantly, the study design did not allow assessing if the "on-demand" strategy had missed or delayed some diagnoses.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the current practices of chest radiograph (CXR) prescription and their clinical impact. DESIGN: Prospective snapshot observational study (on RadioDay) combined with a survey. PATIENTS: Patients who were given a CXR on RadioDay. SETTING: One hundred four French intensive care units (ICUs). RESULTS: On RadioDay, 854 CXRs (in 804 patients) were ordered. For the "CXRs morning round," the prescription policy was declared to be "on-demand" (in 63 % of the ICUs), "daily routine only in mechanically ventilated patients (MV)" (30 %) or, less frequently, "daily routine in all patients" (7 %). When analyzing the two main local policies, as compared with "daily routine only in MV" ICUs, in "on-demand" ICUs: (1) fewer CXRs were ordered (0.6 ± 0.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 CXRs/patient, p < 0.001) with no increase in the rate of unscheduled CXRs (i.e., CXRs performed outside the morning round), and (2) individual CXRs were more often followed by a therapeutic intervention (which would not have occurred without the CXR): 34 vs. 25 % of the CXRs (p < 0.05). Last, in case of severe respiratory disease (low PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio), it is noteworthy that the clinical value of "on-demand" individual CXRs was still markedly higher than that of "daily routine" CXRs. CONCLUSION: Nearly two-thirds of the participating ICUs adopted the "on-demand" strategy of prescription, which was associated with a lower rate of CXRs with no increase in unscheduled CXRs and was of higher clinical value than a "daily routine in MV" strategy. Importantly, the study design did not allow assessing if the "on-demand" strategy had missed or delayed some diagnoses.
Authors: Giovanni Volpicelli; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Michael Blaivas; Daniel A Lichtenstein; Gebhard Mathis; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Lawrence Melniker; Luna Gargani; Vicki E Noble; Gabriele Via; Anthony Dean; James W Tsung; Gino Soldati; Roberto Copetti; Belaid Bouhemad; Angelika Reissig; Eustachio Agricola; Jean-Jacques Rouby; Charlotte Arbelot; Andrew Liteplo; Ashot Sargsyan; Fernando Silva; Richard Hoppmann; Raoul Breitkreutz; Armin Seibel; Luca Neri; Enrico Storti; Tomislav Petrovic Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Marleen E Graat; Anke Kröner; Peter E Spronk; Johanna C Korevaar; Jaap Stoker; Margreeth B Vroom; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Marine Aliaga; Jean-Marie Forel; Sophie De Bourmont; Boris Jung; Guillemette Thomas; Martin Mahul; Magali Bisbal; Stephanie Nougaret; Sami Hraiech; Antoine Roch; Kathia Chaumoitre; Samir Jaber; Marc Gainnier; Laurent Papazian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Denise A Castro; Asad A Naqvi; David Manson; Michael P Flavin; Elizabeth VanDenKerkhof; Donald Soboleski Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2015-07-31
Authors: Denise A Castro; Asad Ahmed Naqvi; Elizabeth Vandenkerkhof; Michael P Flavin; David Manson; Donald Soboleski Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2016-05-19
Authors: Geoffrey D Rubin; Christopher J Ryerson; Linda B Haramati; Nicola Sverzellati; Jeffrey P Kanne; Suhail Raoof; Neil W Schluger; Annalisa Volpi; Jae-Joon Yim; Ian B K Martin; Deverick J Anderson; Christina Kong; Talissa Altes; Andrew Bush; Sujal R Desai; Onathan Goldin; Jin Mo Goo; Marc Humbert; Yoshikazu Inoue; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Fengming Luo; Peter J Mazzone; Mathias Prokop; Martine Remy-Jardin; Luca Richeldi; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Noriyuki Tomiyama; Athol U Wells; Ann N Leung Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Concetta Pirozzi; Fabio G Numis; Antonio Pagano; Paolo Melillo; Roberto Copetti; Fernando Schiraldi Journal: Crit Ultrasound J Date: 2014-04-27
Authors: Martijn Tolsma; Tom A Rijpstra; Marcus J Schultz; Paul Gh Mulder; Nardo Jm van der Meer Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 6.925