Tiina T Lehtimäki1, Jussi M Kärkkäinen2, Petri Saari3, Hannu Manninen4, Hannu Paajanen5, Ritva Vanninen6. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: tiina.lehtimaki@kuh.fi. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland; Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: jussi.karkkainen@kuh.fi. 3. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: petri.saari@kuh.fi. 4. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland; Unit of Radiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: hannu.manninen@kuh.fi. 5. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland; Unit of Surgery, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: hannu.paajanen@kuh.fi. 6. Department of Clinical Radiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Puijonlaaksontie 2, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland; Unit of Radiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: ritva.vanninen@kuh.fi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the ability of emergency room radiologists to detect acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) from computed tomography (CT) images in patients with acute abdominal pain. (2) To identify factors affecting radiologists' performance in the CT interpretation and patient outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 95 consecutive patients treated for 97 AMI events between 2009 and 2013 was carried out. The etiology of AMI was embolism in 24 (25%), atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD) in 39 (40%), non-obstructive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) in 25 (26%), and mesenteric venous thrombosis (MVT) in nine (9%) cases. The protocols, referrals and initial radiology reports of the abdominal CTs were analyzed. The CT studies were further scrutinized for vascular and intestinal findings. RESULTS: The referring clinician had suspected AMI in 30 (31%) cases prior to imaging. The crucial findings of AMI had been stated in 97% of the radiology reports if the clinician had mentioned AMI suspicion in the referral; if not, the corresponding rate was 81% (p=0.04). Patients without suspicion of AMI prior to CT were more prone to undergo bowel resection. CT protocol was optimal for AMI (with contrast enhancement in arterial and venous phases) in only 34 (35%) cases. Intestinal findings were more difficult to detect than vascular findings. Vascular findings were retrospectively detectable in 92% of cases with embolism and 100% in ASVD and MVT. Some evidence of intestinal abnormality was retrospectively found in the CT findings in 92%, 100%, 100% and 67% of cases with embolism, ASVD, NOMI and MVT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AMI is underdiagnosed in the CT of the acute abdomen if there is no clinical suspicion.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the ability of emergency room radiologists to detect acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) from computed tomography (CT) images in patients with acute abdominal pain. (2) To identify factors affecting radiologists' performance in the CT interpretation and patient outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 95 consecutive patients treated for 97 AMI events between 2009 and 2013 was carried out. The etiology of AMI was embolism in 24 (25%), atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD) in 39 (40%), non-obstructive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) in 25 (26%), and mesenteric venous thrombosis (MVT) in nine (9%) cases. The protocols, referrals and initial radiology reports of the abdominal CTs were analyzed. The CT studies were further scrutinized for vascular and intestinal findings. RESULTS: The referring clinician had suspected AMI in 30 (31%) cases prior to imaging. The crucial findings of AMI had been stated in 97% of the radiology reports if the clinician had mentioned AMI suspicion in the referral; if not, the corresponding rate was 81% (p=0.04). Patients without suspicion of AMI prior to CT were more prone to undergo bowel resection. CT protocol was optimal for AMI (with contrast enhancement in arterial and venous phases) in only 34 (35%) cases. Intestinal findings were more difficult to detect than vascular findings. Vascular findings were retrospectively detectable in 92% of cases with embolism and 100% in ASVD and MVT. Some evidence of intestinal abnormality was retrospectively found in the CT findings in 92%, 100%, 100% and 67% of cases with embolism, ASVD, NOMI and MVT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:AMI is underdiagnosed in the CT of the acute abdomen if there is no clinical suspicion.
Authors: Luke G Terlouw; Adriaan Moelker; Jan Abrahamsen; Stefan Acosta; Olaf J Bakker; Iris Baumgartner; Louis Boyer; Olivier Corcos; Louisa Jd van Dijk; Mansur Duran; Robert H Geelkerken; Giulio Illuminati; Ralph W Jackson; Jussi M Kärkkäinen; Jeroen J Kolkman; Lars Lönn; Maria A Mazzei; Alexandre Nuzzo; Felice Pecoraro; Jan Raupach; Hence Jm Verhagen; Christoph J Zech; Desirée van Noord; Marco J Bruno Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.623