Guillaume Herpe1, Samy Boucebci1, Tiphaine Cassan1, Marine Verdier1, Charles Simonet1, Guillaume Sztark1, Jean Pierre Tasu2,3,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Poitiers University Hospital, rue de la milétrie, 86000, Poitiers, France. 2. Department of Radiology, Poitiers University Hospital, rue de la milétrie, 86000, Poitiers, France. Jean-pierre.tasu@chu-poitiers.fr. 3. La TIM, INSERM U1101, INSERM-UBO UMR 1101, CHRU Morvan - 2, Av. Foch, 29609, Brest CEDEX, France. Jean-pierre.tasu@chu-poitiers.fr. 4. Service de Radiologie, CHU de Poitiers, 2 rue de la Milétrie, 86000, Poitiers, France. Jean-pierre.tasu@chu-poitiers.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate radiological diagnosis concordance between a simplified and a multiphasic computed tomography (MCT) protocol for patients presenting acute non-traumatic abdominal pains (ANTAE). METHODS: During five consecutive months, all patients admitted in an emergency department for ANTAE were retrospectively included if they underwent MCT, including at least pre-contrast phase, late arterial phase (LAP), and portal venous phase (PVP). Clinical cases of suspected hemorrhagic conditions were secondarily excluded. For the study, two image sets, pre-contrast phase + LAP + PVP ± late phase called S1 and PVP alone called S2, were reviewed independently to give the most appropriate diagnosis with 5-point confidence scale. Diagnosis concordance and radiation dose were compared for each set of protocol by chi-square test. Linear mixed model was used to assess changes of diagnostic confidence and radiation dose. RESULTS: All in all, 196 patients were included. The kappa coefficient between S1 and S2 was excellent (98.5%, CI95% 95.6-99.7). Three errors due to an inappropriate protocol were observed (1.5%; CI95% = - 0.2 to 3.2%), 2 related to biliary tract obstruction causes and one due to gastric bleeding not suspected on clinical data. S2 was associated with a 61% decrease of the radiation dose (p = 0.01) with a mild decrease of the confidence scale (4.54 ± 0.05 versus 4.74 ± 0.03, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using PVP-CT alone or MCT is equivalent for the diagnosis of ANTAE if suspected acute hemorrhages are excluded. A simplified CT protocol is associated with a dose decrease of 61%.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate radiological diagnosis concordance between a simplified and a multiphasic computed tomography (MCT) protocol for patients presenting acute non-traumatic abdominal pains (ANTAE). METHODS: During five consecutive months, all patients admitted in an emergency department for ANTAE were retrospectively included if they underwent MCT, including at least pre-contrast phase, late arterial phase (LAP), and portal venous phase (PVP). Clinical cases of suspected hemorrhagic conditions were secondarily excluded. For the study, two image sets, pre-contrast phase + LAP + PVP ± late phase called S1 and PVP alone called S2, were reviewed independently to give the most appropriate diagnosis with 5-point confidence scale. Diagnosis concordance and radiation dose were compared for each set of protocol by chi-square test. Linear mixed model was used to assess changes of diagnostic confidence and radiation dose. RESULTS: All in all, 196 patients were included. The kappa coefficient between S1 and S2 was excellent (98.5%, CI95% 95.6-99.7). Three errors due to an inappropriate protocol were observed (1.5%; CI95% = - 0.2 to 3.2%), 2 related to biliary tract obstruction causes and one due to gastric bleeding not suspected on clinical data. S2 was associated with a 61% decrease of the radiation dose (p = 0.01) with a mild decrease of the confidence scale (4.54 ± 0.05 versus 4.74 ± 0.03, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using PVP-CT alone or MCT is equivalent for the diagnosis of ANTAE if suspected acute hemorrhages are excluded. A simplified CT protocol is associated with a dose decrease of 61%.
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: Andrew B MacKersie; Michael J Lane; Robert T Gerhardt; Harry A Claypool; Sean Keenan; Douglas S Katz; Jonathan E Tucker Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adrienne van Randen; Wytze Laméris; C Yung Nio; Anje M Spijkerboer; Mark A Meier; Charlotte Tutein Nolthenius; Frank Smithuis; Patrick M Bossuyt; Marja A Boermeester; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John Eng; Renee F Wilson; Rathan M Subramaniam; Allen Zhang; Catalina Suarez-Cuervo; Sharon Turban; Michael J Choi; Cheryl Sherrod; Susan Hutfless; Emmanuel E Iyoha; Eric B Bass Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 25.391