The lack of efficacy for oral contrast in the diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography.

Department of Surgery, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA.
Journal of Surgical Research (Impact Factor: 2.12). 03/2011; 170(1):100-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.02.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Oral contrast is often used with computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis. This adjunct adds time to evaluation, not all patients can tolerate enteric bolus, and the diagnostic advantages have not been well defined. Therefore, we reviewed our experience to evaluate the impact of oral contrast on diagnostic efficiency and its impact on the patient.
After obtaining IRB approval, a retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent CT with oral contrast for the indication of appendicitis over the last 4 years. Data recorded included demographics, CT results, emergency room course, operative findings, and pathology interpretation. All images were reviewed to identify presence/absence of contrast at or beyond the terminal ileum.
There were 1561 patients, of whom, 652 (41.8%) were diagnosed with appendicitis and 909 (58.2%) were not (non-appendicitis). Contrast was identified at least to the level of the terminal ileum in 72.4% of the entire population. The contrast was present in 76.2% of the non-appendicitis patients and 67.0% of the appendicitis patients (P = 0.01). Mean time from oral contrast administration to CT imaging was 105.5 min, which was longer in patients with appendicitis (112.2 min) compared with non-appendicitis patients (100.9 min) (P = 0.01). Emesis of the contrast occurred in 19.3% of those with appendicitis and 12.9% of those without appendicitis (P = 0.001). Nasogastric tubes were placed in 5.8% of those with appendicitis and 5.1% of those without (P = 0.37). Appendicitis was confirmed at operation in 94.3% of those with contrast in the area and 94.4% of those without (P = 1.0). Pathology confirmed appendicitis in 90.6% of those with contrast in the area and 94.0% of those without (P = 0.17).
Nearly 30% of patients receiving oral contrast for the CT diagnosis of appendicitis do not have contrast in the point of interest at the expense of emesis, nasogastric tube placement, and diagnostic delay. These detriments are amplified in patients who have appendicitis. Further, there appears to be no diagnostic compromise in those without contrast in the terminal ileum.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the incidence of missed gastroduodenal ulcers on routine abdominal computed tomography (CT) and identify findings and methods to improve sensitivity of CT interpretation for peptic ulcers. This is a retrospective chart and imaging review. Two blinded readers independently reviewed CTs performed within 7 days prior to endoscopy of 114 subjects; this included 57 consecutive subjects with proven gastroduodenal ulcers intermixed with 57 subjects with endoscopically normal examinations. Presence, location and size of ulcer crater, and ancillary findings (mural edema, asymmetric wall thickening, focal fat stranding, regional lymph nodes, and extraluminal gas) were recorded before and after review of multiplanar reformatted images. Radiology reports were then reviewed to determine if an ulcer was identified prospectively. Thirty-one ulcers (54%) were radiographically occult, missed by both readers. Thirteen ulcers were correctly and independently identified by both readers (sensitivity/specificity = 30%/100%). With review of multiplanar reformats, sensitivity and accuracy increased for both readers. When two or more ancillary findings were identified, the odds ratio of a true ulcer being present was greater than 5.6 (P = 0.0001). Both size and location of ulcer were important for detection; readers were more likely to identify gastric ulcers compared to duodenal or marginal ulcers (P = 0.02). Only 3/13 definitely visible ulcers were correctly identified during initial CT interpretation. Although CT has low sensitivity for peptic ulcer disease, the miss rate for visible peptic ulcers is high. Increased awareness, multiplanar imaging review, and identification of ancillary findings may improve sensitivity for gastroduodenal ulcers.
    Abdominal Imaging 07/2014; 40(1). DOI:10.1007/s00261-014-0190-1 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This investigation evaluates the impact of the no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) on radiology turn around time (TAT), emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), and patient safety metrics. During a 12-month period at two urban teaching hospitals, 6,409 ED abdominopelvic (AP) CTs were performed to evaluate acute abdominal pain. NOCAPE represented 70.9 % of all ED AP CT examinations with intravenous contrast. Data collection included patient demographics, use of intravenous (IV) and/or oral contrast, order to complete and order to final interpretation TAT, ED LOS, admission, recall and bounce back rates, and comparison and characterization of impressions. The NOCAPE pathway reduced median order to complete TAT by 32 min (22.9 %) compared to IV and oral contrast AP CT examinations (traditional pathway) (P < 0.001). Median order to final TAT was 2.9 h in NOCAPE patients and 3.5 h in the traditional pathway, a 36-min (17.1 %) reduction (P < 0.001). Overall, the NOCAPE pathway reduced ED LOS by a median of 43 min (8.8 %) compared to the traditional pathway (8.2 vs 7.5 h) (P = 0.003). Recall and bounce back rates were 3.2 %, and only one patient had change in impression after oral contrast CT was repeated. The NOCAPE pathway is associated with decreased radiology TAT and ED LOS metrics. The authors suggest that NOCAPE implementation in the ED setting is safe and positively impacts both radiology and emergency medicine workflow.
    Emergency Radiology 06/2014; DOI:10.1007/s10140-014-1240-2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Our goal was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of intravenous (IV)-only versus IV + enteral contrast in computed tomographic (CT) scans performed for patients undergoing appendectomy across a diverse group of hospitals. Background: Small randomized trials from tertiary centers suggest that en- teral contrast does not improve diagnostic performance of CT for suspected appendicitis, but generalizability has not been demonstrated. Eliminating en- teral contrast may improve efficiency, patient comfort, and safety. Methods: We analyzed data for adult patients who underwent nonelective appendectomy at 56 hospitals over a 2-year period. Data were obtained directly from patient charts by trained abstractors. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to adjust for potential confounding. The main outcome measure was concordance between final radiology interpretation and final pathology report. Results: A total of 9047 adults underwent appendectomy and 8089 (89.4%) underwent CT, 54.1% of these with IV contrast only and 28.5% with IV + enteral contrast. Pathology findings correlated with radiographic findings in 90.0% of patients who received IV + enteral contrast and 90.4% of patients scanned with IV contrast alone. Hospitals were categorized as rural or ur- ban and by their teaching status. Regardless of hospital type, there was no difference in concordance between IV-only and IV + enteral contrast. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbid conditions, weight, hospital type, and perfo- ration, odds ratio of concordance for IV + enteral contrast versus IV contrast alone was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.72–1.25). Conclusions: Enteral contrast does not improve CT evaluation of appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy. These broadly generalizable results from a diverse group of hospitals suggest that enteral contrast can be eliminated in CT scans for suspected appendicitis.
    Annals of Surgery 07/2014; 260(2):311-316. DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000272 · 7.19 Impact Factor


Available from
Oct 13, 2014