Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients.

Autor: Lee SY; Department of Radiology, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA. Steve.Lee@bhs.org, Coughlin B, Wolfe JM, Polino J, Blank FS, Smithline HA
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Emergency radiology [Emerg Radiol] 2006 May; Vol. 12 (4), pp. 150-7. Date of Electronic Publication: 2006 Apr 21.
DOI: 10.1007/s10140-006-0474-z
Abstrakt: Purpose: This prospective study compares the agreement of nonenhanced helical computed tomography (NECT) with oral contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in Emergency Department (ED) patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.
Materials and Methods: One hundred eighteen patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain undergoing CT were enrolled over a 13-month period using convenience sampling. Exclusion criteria included acute trauma, pregnancy, unstable patients, and patients suspected of having urinary calculi. Patients were scanned helically using 5-mm collimation before and approximately 90 min after oral contrast administration. Both exams were prospectively interpreted by different attending radiologists in a blinded fashion using an explicit data sheet specifying the presence or absence of 28 parameters relating to various common diagnoses.
Results: The 118 patients had a mean age of 49 years, a male: female ratio of 7:13, and a median height, weight, and BMI of 166 cm, 80 kg, and 29, respectively. The most common indications for the study included appendicitis (32%) and diverticular disease (12%). Pain maximally localized to the right lower quadrant in 37% and the left lower quadrant in 21%. There were 21 patients that had significant disagreement of interpretations between NECT and CECT resulting in a simple agreement of 79% (95% CI: 70-87%). For specific radiologic parameters, agreement ranged from 77 to 100%. A post hoc agreement analysis was subsequently performed by two radiologists and only five paired scans were identified as discordant between the NECT and CECT. For only one of these patients did both radiologists agree that there was a definite discordant result between the two studies. A final unblinded consensus review demonstrated that much of the disagreement between the interpretations was related to interobserver variation.
Conclusion: There is 79% simple agreement between NECT and CECT in diagnosing various causes of acute abdominal pain in adult ED patients. Post hoc analysis indicates that a significant portion of the discordance was attributable to interobserver variability. This data suggests that NECT should be considered in adult ED patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: