Gray R Lyons1, Pooja Renjen1, Gulce Askin2, Ashley E Giambrone2, Debra Beneck3, Arzu Kovanlikaya4. 1. Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th St., F631E, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th St., F631E, New York, NY, 10065, USA. ark2011@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly employed as a diagnostic modality for suspected appendicitis in children. However, there is uncertainty as to which MRI sequences are sufficient for safe, timely and accurate diagnosis. Several recent studies have described different MRI protocols, including exams both with and without the use of intravenous contrast. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that intravenous contrast may be useful in some patients but could be safely omitted in others. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All MRI examinations (n=112) performed at our institution for evaluating appendicitis in children were retrospectively reevaluated. Exams were reread by pediatric radiologists under three conditions: With postcontrast images, Without postcontrast images, and Without/With - selective use of postcontrast sequences only when needed for diagnostic certainty. Samples were scored as positive, negative or equivocal for appendicitis. Findings were compared to pathological or clinical follow-up in the medical record. RESULTS: Without the use of intravenous contrast yielded more equivocal results (12.4%) compared to With contrast (3.4%). By selectively using postcontrast sequences, the Without/With group yielded fewer equivocal results (1.1%) compared to Without while also reducing contrast use 79.8% compared to the With contrast group. No significant differences in conditional sensitivity or conditional specificity were detected among the three groups. CONCLUSION: MRI diagnosis of acute appendicitis can be performed without contrast for most patients; injection of contrast can be reserved for only those patients with equivocal non-contrast imaging.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly employed as a diagnostic modality for suspected appendicitis in children. However, there is uncertainty as to which MRI sequences are sufficient for safe, timely and accurate diagnosis. Several recent studies have described different MRI protocols, including exams both with and without the use of intravenous contrast. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that intravenous contrast may be useful in some patients but could be safely omitted in others. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All MRI examinations (n=112) performed at our institution for evaluating appendicitis in children were retrospectively reevaluated. Exams were reread by pediatric radiologists under three conditions: With postcontrast images, Without postcontrast images, and Without/With - selective use of postcontrast sequences only when needed for diagnostic certainty. Samples were scored as positive, negative or equivocal for appendicitis. Findings were compared to pathological or clinical follow-up in the medical record. RESULTS: Without the use of intravenous contrast yielded more equivocal results (12.4%) compared to With contrast (3.4%). By selectively using postcontrast sequences, the Without/With group yielded fewer equivocal results (1.1%) compared to Without while also reducing contrast use 79.8% compared to the With contrast group. No significant differences in conditional sensitivity or conditional specificity were detected among the three groups. CONCLUSION: MRI diagnosis of acute appendicitis can be performed without contrast for most patients; injection of contrast can be reserved for only those patients with equivocal non-contrast imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
Appendicitis; Children; Intravenous contrast; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Alisa K Johnson; Christopher G Filippi; Trevor Andrews; Timothy Higgins; Judy Tam; David Keating; Takamaru Ashikaga; Steven P Braff; Janice Gallant Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lucila A Rosines; Daniel S Chow; Brooke S Lampl; Susie Chen; Samantha Gordon; Leonora W Mui; Gudrun Aspelund; Carrie B Ruzal-Shapiro Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brett S Athans; Holly E Depinet; Alexander J Towbin; Yue Zhang; Bin Zhang; Andrew T Trout Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas M Kennedy; Amy D Thompson; Arabinda K Choudhary; Richard J Caplan; Kathleen E Schenker; Andrew D DePiero Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Nattinee Leelakanok; Andrew S Phelps; Matthew A Zapala; Kambrie Kato; Michael Ohliger; Yi Li; Jesse Courtier Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Karl James; Patrick Duffy; Richard G Kavanagh; Brian W Carey; Stephen Power; David Ryan; Stella Joyce; Aoife Feeley; Peter Murphy; Emmet Andrews; Mark F McEntee; Michael Moore; Conor Bogue; Michael M Maher; Owen J O' Connor Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2020-06-16