Tim Finkenstaedt1, Andrei Manoliou1, Martin Toniolo2, Kai Higashigaito1, Gustav Andreisek1, Roman Guggenberger1, Beat Michel2, Hatem Alkadhi3. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, Zurich, 8091, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. hatem.alkadhi@usz.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in gout. METHODS: Forty-three patients with (n = 20) and without a history of gout (n = 23) showing non-specific soft tissue deposits underwent DECT after unrewarding arthrocentesis. Two blinded, independent readers evaluated DECT for the presence of urate crystals. Clinical diagnosis, clinically suspected urate crystal locations, diagnostic thinking and therapeutic decisions were noted before and after DECT. Clinical 1-month follow-up was obtained. RESULTS: DECT showed urate in 26/43 patients (60 %). After DECT, clinical diagnosis of gout was withdrawn in 17/43 (40 %) and was maintained in 16/43 patients (37 %). In 10/43 patients (23 %) the diagnosis was maintained, but DECT revealed urate in clinically unsuspected locations. In 23/43 patients (53 %), a treatment-change based on DECT occurred. Changes in diagnostic thinking occurred more frequently in patients without a history of gout (p < 0.001), changes in therapeutic decisions more frequently in patients with a history of gout (p = 0.014). Clinical follow-up indicated beneficial effects of DECT-based diagnoses in 83 % of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with or without a history of gout and a recent suspicion for gouty arthritis with an unrewarding arthrocentesis, DECT has a marked diagnostic and therapeutic impact when hyperdense soft-tissue deposits are present. KEY POINTS: • This study evaluates the concept of evidence-based radiology • In patients with suspected gout, DECT can help clinicians make the diagnosis • DECT has a marked impact on therapy • Clinical follow-up after 1 month indicated reliable results of DECT.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in gout. METHODS: Forty-three patients with (n = 20) and without a history of gout (n = 23) showing non-specific soft tissue deposits underwent DECT after unrewarding arthrocentesis. Two blinded, independent readers evaluated DECT for the presence of urate crystals. Clinical diagnosis, clinically suspected urate crystal locations, diagnostic thinking and therapeutic decisions were noted before and after DECT. Clinical 1-month follow-up was obtained. RESULTS: DECT showed urate in 26/43 patients (60 %). After DECT, clinical diagnosis of gout was withdrawn in 17/43 (40 %) and was maintained in 16/43 patients (37 %). In 10/43 patients (23 %) the diagnosis was maintained, but DECT revealed urate in clinically unsuspected locations. In 23/43 patients (53 %), a treatment-change based on DECT occurred. Changes in diagnostic thinking occurred more frequently in patients without a history of gout (p < 0.001), changes in therapeutic decisions more frequently in patients with a history of gout (p = 0.014). Clinical follow-up indicated beneficial effects of DECT-based diagnoses in 83 % of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with or without a history of gout and a recent suspicion for gouty arthritis with an unrewarding arthrocentesis, DECT has a marked diagnostic and therapeutic impact when hyperdense soft-tissue deposits are present. KEY POINTS: • This study evaluates the concept of evidence-based radiology • In patients with suspected gout, DECT can help clinicians make the diagnosis • DECT has a marked impact on therapy • Clinical follow-up after 1 month indicated reliable results of DECT.
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; John D Fitzgerald; Puja P Khanna; Sangmee Bae; Manjit K Singh; Tuhina Neogi; Michael H Pillinger; Joan Merill; Susan Lee; Shraddha Prakash; Marian Kaldas; Maneesh Gogia; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Will Taylor; Frédéric Lioté; Hyon Choi; Jasvinder A Singh; Nicola Dalbeth; Sanford Kaplan; Vandana Niyyar; Danielle Jones; Steven A Yarows; Blake Roessler; Gail Kerr; Charles King; Gerald Levy; Daniel E Furst; N Lawrence Edwards; Brian Mandell; H Ralph Schumacher; Mark Robbins; Neil Wenger; Robert Terkeltaub Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Puja P Khanna; John D Fitzgerald; Manjit K Singh; Sangmee Bae; Tuhina Neogi; Michael H Pillinger; Joan Merill; Susan Lee; Shraddha Prakash; Marian Kaldas; Maneesh Gogia; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Will Taylor; Frédéric Lioté; Hyon Choi; Jasvinder A Singh; Nicola Dalbeth; Sanford Kaplan; Vandana Niyyar; Danielle Jones; Steven A Yarows; Blake Roessler; Gail Kerr; Charles King; Gerald Levy; Daniel E Furst; N Lawrence Edwards; Brian Mandell; H Ralph Schumacher; Mark Robbins; Neil Wenger; Robert Terkeltaub Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; Kay-Geert A Hermann; Torsten Diekhoff; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Wolfgang A Schmidt Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Alexis Ogdie; William J Taylor; Mark Weatherall; Jaap Fransen; Tim L Jansen; Tuhina Neogi; H Ralph Schumacher; Nicola Dalbeth Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Tim Bongartz; Katrina N Glazebrook; Steven J Kavros; Naveen S Murthy; Stephen P Merry; Walter B Franz; Clement J Michet; Barath M Akkara Veetil; John M Davis; Thomas G Mason; Kenneth J Warrington; Steven R Ytterberg; Eric L Matteson; Cynthia S Crowson; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 19.103