Literature DB >> 27240285

Temporal trends in the use of diagnostic imaging for inpatients with pancreatic conditions: How much ionizing radiation are we using?

Alexsander K Bressan1, Jean-Francois Ouellet1, Divine Tanyingoh1, Elijah Dixon1, Gilaad G Kaplan1, Sean C Grondin1, Robert P Myers1, Rachid Mohamed1, Chad G Ball1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging has been indirectly linked with subsequent cancer and increased costs. Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for defining pancreatic anatomy and complications. Our primary goal was to identify the temporal trends associated with diagnostic imaging for inpatients with pancreatic diseases.
METHODS: Data were extracted from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2000 to 2008. Pancreas-related ICD-9 diagnostic codes were matched to all relevant imaging modalities.
RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2008, a significant increase in admissions (p < 0.001), but decrease in overall imaging procedures (p = 0.032), for all pancreatic disorders was observed. This was primarily a result of a reduction in the number of CT and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography examinations (i.e., reduced radiation exposure, p = 0.008). A concurrent increase in the number of inpatient magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography/magnetic resonance imaging performed was observed (p = 0.040). Intraoperative cholangiography and CT remained the dominant imaging modality of choice overall (p = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: Inpatients with pancreatic diseases often require diagnostic imaging during their stay. This results in substantial exposure to ionizing radiation. The observed decrease in the use of CT may reflect an improved awareness of potential stochastic risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27240285      PMCID: PMC4982864          DOI: 10.1503/cjs.006015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  35 in total

1.  Study warns of 'avoidable' risks of CT scans.

Authors:  Jim Giles
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-09-23       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Is computed tomography safe?

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis.

Authors:  Frances Tse; Yuhong Yuan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-05-16

Review 4.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Eric J Hall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in severely injured trauma patients.

Authors:  Homer C Tien; Lorraine N Tremblay; Sandro B Rizoli; Jacob Gelberg; Fernando Spencer; Curtis Caldwell; Frederick D Brenneman
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2007-01

6.  Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening.

Authors:  Molly T Beinfeld; Eve Wittenberg; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Computed tomography staging of pancreatic cancer: a validation study addressing interobserver agreement.

Authors:  L Loizou; N Albiin; C Ansorge; M Andersson; R Segersvärd; B Leidner; A Sundin; L Lundell; N Kartalis
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 3.996

8.  Radiation exposures of cancer patients from medical X-rays: how relevant are they for individual patients and population exposure?

Authors:  Gunnar Brix; Sven Nissen-Meyer; Ursula Lechel; Johannes Nissen-Meyer; Jürgen Griebel; Elke A Nekolla; Christoph Becker; Maximilian Reiser
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-08-22       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; James R Jett; Ugo Pastorino; Melvyn S Tockman; Stephen J Swensen; Colin B Begg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Virtual colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: current status.

Authors:  Jay P Heiken; Christine M Peterson; Christine O Menias
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.