Christine Lamoureux1, Scott Weber2, Tarek Hanna3, Andrew J Grabiel2, Reese H Clark4. 1. Virtual Radiologic Professionals, Eden Prairie, MN, USA. christine.lamoureux@vrad.com. 2. Virtual Radiologic Professionals, Eden Prairie, MN, USA. 3. Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, Quality and Safety, 1301 Concord Terrace, Sunrise, FL, 33323-2825, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if administering IV contrast for CT abdomen and pelvis improves detection of urgent and clinically important non-urgent pathology in patients with urgent clinical symptoms compared to patients not receiving IV contrast, and in turn to determine whether repeat CT exams on the same patient within 72 h were of low diagnostic benefit if the first CT was performed with IV contrast. METHODS: We evaluated 400 consecutive patients who had CT abdomen and pelvis (CT AP) examinations repeated within 72 h. For each patient, demographic data, reason for examination, examination time stamps, and examination technique were documented. CT AP radiology reports were reviewed and both urgent and non-urgent pathology was extracted. RESULTS: Of 400 patients, 63% had their initial CT AP without contrast. Administration of IV contrast for the first CT AP was associated with increased detection of urgent findings compared with non-contrast CT (p = 0.004) and a contrast-enhanced CT AP following an initial non-contrast CT AP examination better characterized both urgent (p = 0.002) and non-urgent findings (p < 0.001). Adherence to ACR appropriateness criteria for IV contrast administration was associated with increased detection of urgent pathology on the first CT (p = 0.02), and the second CT was more likely to be performed with IV contrast if recommended by the radiologist reading the first CT (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: In the absence of contraindications, encouraging urgent care physicians to preferentially order IV contrast-enhanced CT AP examinations in adherence with ACR appropriateness criteria may increase detection of urgent pathology and avoid short-term repeat CT AP.
PURPOSE: To determine if administering IV contrast for CT abdomen and pelvis improves detection of urgent and clinically important non-urgent pathology in patients with urgent clinical symptoms compared to patients not receiving IV contrast, and in turn to determine whether repeat CT exams on the same patient within 72 h were of low diagnostic benefit if the first CT was performed with IV contrast. METHODS: We evaluated 400 consecutive patients who had CT abdomen and pelvis (CT AP) examinations repeated within 72 h. For each patient, demographic data, reason for examination, examination time stamps, and examination technique were documented. CT AP radiology reports were reviewed and both urgent and non-urgent pathology was extracted. RESULTS: Of 400 patients, 63% had their initial CT AP without contrast. Administration of IV contrast for the first CT AP was associated with increased detection of urgent findings compared with non-contrast CT (p = 0.004) and a contrast-enhanced CT AP following an initial non-contrast CT AP examination better characterized both urgent (p = 0.002) and non-urgent findings (p < 0.001). Adherence to ACR appropriateness criteria for IV contrast administration was associated with increased detection of urgent pathology on the first CT (p = 0.02), and the second CT was more likely to be performed with IV contrast if recommended by the radiologist reading the first CT (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: In the absence of contraindications, encouraging urgent care physicians to preferentially order IV contrast-enhanced CT AP examinations in adherence with ACR appropriateness criteria may increase detection of urgent pathology and avoid short-term repeat CT AP.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT abdomen and pelvis; IV contrast; Radiology; Repeat CT
Authors: Sandip Basak; Levon N Nazarian; Richard J Wechsler; Laurence Parker; Brian D Williams; Anna S Lev-Toaff; Alfred B Kurtz Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Susanna I Lee; Arun Krishnaraj; Manjil Chatterji; Keith J Dreyer; James H Thrall; Peter F Hahn Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ashish K Jha; David C Chan; Abigail B Ridgway; Calvin Franz; David W Bates Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Hani H Abujudeh; Rathachai Kaewlai; Pamela M McMahon; William Binder; Robert A Novelline; G Scott Gazelle; James H Thrall Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Max P Rosen; Bettina Siewert; Daniel Z Sands; Rebecca Bromberg; Jonathan Edlow; Vassilios Raptopoulos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wytze Laméris; Adrienne van Randen; H Wouter van Es; Johannes P M van Heesewijk; Bert van Ramshorst; Wim H Bouma; Wim ten Hove; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Esteban M van Keulen; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Marja A Boermeester; Jaap Stoker Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-06-26