Basien Nicolan1, Joël Greffier1, Djamel Dabli1, Hélène de Forges1, Elise Arcis1, Nadir Al Zouabi1, Ahmed Larbi2, Jean-Paul Beregi1, Julien Frandon3. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2415, 30000 Nîmes, France. 2. ISERIS imagerie médicale, 34000 Montpellier, France. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2415, 30000 Nîmes, France. Electronic address: julien.frandon@chu-nimes.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of ultra-low dose (ULD) to that of standard (STD) computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of non-traumatic abdominal emergencies using clinical follow-up as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients requiring emergency abdomen-pelvic CT examination from March 2017 to September 2017 were prospectively included. ULD and STD CTs were acquired after intravenous administration iodinated contrast medium (portal phase). CT acquisitions were performed at 125mAs for STD and 55mAs for ULD. Diagnostic performance was retrospectively evaluated on ULD and STD CTs using clinical follow-up as a reference diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 308 CT examinations from 308 patients (145 men; mean age 59.1±20.7 (SD) years; age range: 18-96 years) were included; among which 241/308 (78.2%) showed abnormal findings. The effective dose was significantly lower with the ULD protocol (1.55±1.03 [SD] mSv) than with the STD (3.67±2.56 [SD] mSv) (P<0.001). Sensitivity was significantly lower for the ULD protocol (85.5% [95%CI: 80.4-89.4]) than for the STD (93.4% [95%CI: 89.4-95.9], P<0.001) whereas specificities were similar (94.0% [95%CI: 85.1-98.0] vs. 95.5% [95%CI: 87.0-98.9], respectively). ULD sensitivity was equivalent to STD for bowel obstruction and colitis/diverticulitis (96.4% [95%CI: 87.0-99.6] and 86.5% [95%CI: 74.3-93.5] for ULD vs. 96.4% [95%CI: 87.0-99.6] and 88.5% [95%CI: 76.5-94.9] for STD, respectively) but lower for appendicitis, pyelonephritis, abscesses and renal colic (75.0% [95%CI: 57.6-86.9]; 77.3% [95%CI: 56.0-90.1]; 90.5% [95%CI: 69.6-98.4] and 85% [95%CI: 62.9-95.4] for ULD vs. 93.8% [95%CI: 78.6-99.2]; 95.5% [95%CI: 76.2-100.0]; 100.0% [95%CI: 81.4-100.0] and 100.0% [95%CI: 80.6-100.0] for STD, respectively). Sensitivities were significantly different between the two protocols only for appendicitis (P=0.041). CONCLUSION: In an emergency context, for patients with non-traumatic abdominal emergencies, ULD-CT showed inferior diagnostic performance compared to STD-CT for most abdominal conditions except for bowel obstruction and colitis/diverticulitis detection.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of ultra-low dose (ULD) to that of standard (STD) computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of non-traumatic abdominal emergencies using clinical follow-up as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients requiring emergency abdomen-pelvic CT examination from March 2017 to September 2017 were prospectively included. ULD and STD CTs were acquired after intravenous administration iodinated contrast medium (portal phase). CT acquisitions were performed at 125mAs for STD and 55mAs for ULD. Diagnostic performance was retrospectively evaluated on ULD and STD CTs using clinical follow-up as a reference diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 308 CT examinations from 308 patients (145 men; mean age 59.1±20.7 (SD) years; age range: 18-96 years) were included; among which 241/308 (78.2%) showed abnormal findings. The effective dose was significantly lower with the ULD protocol (1.55±1.03 [SD] mSv) than with the STD (3.67±2.56 [SD] mSv) (P<0.001). Sensitivity was significantly lower for the ULD protocol (85.5% [95%CI: 80.4-89.4]) than for the STD (93.4% [95%CI: 89.4-95.9], P<0.001) whereas specificities were similar (94.0% [95%CI: 85.1-98.0] vs. 95.5% [95%CI: 87.0-98.9], respectively). ULD sensitivity was equivalent to STD for bowel obstruction and colitis/diverticulitis (96.4% [95%CI: 87.0-99.6] and 86.5% [95%CI: 74.3-93.5] for ULD vs. 96.4% [95%CI: 87.0-99.6] and 88.5% [95%CI: 76.5-94.9] for STD, respectively) but lower for appendicitis, pyelonephritis, abscesses and renal colic (75.0% [95%CI: 57.6-86.9]; 77.3% [95%CI: 56.0-90.1]; 90.5% [95%CI: 69.6-98.4] and 85% [95%CI: 62.9-95.4] for ULD vs. 93.8% [95%CI: 78.6-99.2]; 95.5% [95%CI: 76.2-100.0]; 100.0% [95%CI: 81.4-100.0] and 100.0% [95%CI: 80.6-100.0] for STD, respectively). Sensitivities were significantly different between the two protocols only for appendicitis (P=0.041). CONCLUSION: In an emergency context, for patients with non-traumatic abdominal emergencies, ULD-CT showed inferior diagnostic performance compared to STD-CT for most abdominal conditions except for bowel obstruction and colitis/diverticulitis detection.