CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: Impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast

Brian C. Hill, Scott C. Johnson, Emily K. Owens, Jennifer L. Gerber, Anthony J. Senagore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background : There are limited data available on the ability of computed tomography (CT) to accurately diagnose abdominopelvic pathology in acutely ill inpatients suspected of having an acute abdominal process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal/pelvic CT with varying use of contrast agents in hospitalized patients. Methods A retrospective review of all hospital inpatients (3/1/07-5/31/07) who underwent urgent or emergent abdominal/pelvic CT with any combination of contrast, intravenous (IV), oral, rectal, or unenhanced for a suspected acute abdominal process was performed. Data collected included demographics, combination of contrast used, CT diagnosis, time from CT scan to subsequent intervention, intervention type, and actual diagnosis of the acute abdominal process. Accuracy of CT was compared between enhanced and unenhanced imaging using Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 661 patients were identified. Use of IV contrast alone was found in 54.2% of CT scans and was correct in 92.5% of cases. IV and oral contrast was used in 22.2% of CT scans and was 94.6% correct. Unenhanced imaging was performed in 16.2% and was correct in 92.5%. Oral contrast alone was used in 7.0% and was 93.5% correct. There was no significant difference in the ability to correctly diagnose a suspected acute abdominal process when enhanced CT imaging was compared to unenhanced (p > 0.05). Conclusions CT contrast administration in critically ill hospitalized patients is not necessary to accurately diagnose an acute abdominal process. Eliminating the use of contrast may improve patient comfort, decrease patient risk, and minimize financial cost.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)699-703
Number of pages5
JournalWorld Journal of Surgery
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tomography
Inpatients
Critical Illness
Contrast Media
Demography
Pathology
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process : Impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast. / Hill, Brian C.; Johnson, Scott C.; Owens, Emily K.; Gerber, Jennifer L.; Senagore, Anthony J.

In: World Journal of Surgery, Vol. 34, No. 4, 04.2010, p. 699-703.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hill, Brian C. ; Johnson, Scott C. ; Owens, Emily K. ; Gerber, Jennifer L. ; Senagore, Anthony J. / CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process : Impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast. In: World Journal of Surgery. 2010 ; Vol. 34, No. 4. pp. 699-703.
@article{20f7a4e6e6ba4a6785f316258460f727,
title = "CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: Impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast",
abstract = "Background : There are limited data available on the ability of computed tomography (CT) to accurately diagnose abdominopelvic pathology in acutely ill inpatients suspected of having an acute abdominal process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal/pelvic CT with varying use of contrast agents in hospitalized patients. Methods A retrospective review of all hospital inpatients (3/1/07-5/31/07) who underwent urgent or emergent abdominal/pelvic CT with any combination of contrast, intravenous (IV), oral, rectal, or unenhanced for a suspected acute abdominal process was performed. Data collected included demographics, combination of contrast used, CT diagnosis, time from CT scan to subsequent intervention, intervention type, and actual diagnosis of the acute abdominal process. Accuracy of CT was compared between enhanced and unenhanced imaging using Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 661 patients were identified. Use of IV contrast alone was found in 54.2{\%} of CT scans and was correct in 92.5{\%} of cases. IV and oral contrast was used in 22.2{\%} of CT scans and was 94.6{\%} correct. Unenhanced imaging was performed in 16.2{\%} and was correct in 92.5{\%}. Oral contrast alone was used in 7.0{\%} and was 93.5{\%} correct. There was no significant difference in the ability to correctly diagnose a suspected acute abdominal process when enhanced CT imaging was compared to unenhanced (p > 0.05). Conclusions CT contrast administration in critically ill hospitalized patients is not necessary to accurately diagnose an acute abdominal process. Eliminating the use of contrast may improve patient comfort, decrease patient risk, and minimize financial cost.",
author = "Hill, {Brian C.} and Johnson, {Scott C.} and Owens, {Emily K.} and Gerber, {Jennifer L.} and Senagore, {Anthony J.}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00268-009-0379-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "699--703",
journal = "Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference",
issn = "0364-2313",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process

T2 - Impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast

AU - Hill, Brian C.

AU - Johnson, Scott C.

AU - Owens, Emily K.

AU - Gerber, Jennifer L.

AU - Senagore, Anthony J.

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Background : There are limited data available on the ability of computed tomography (CT) to accurately diagnose abdominopelvic pathology in acutely ill inpatients suspected of having an acute abdominal process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal/pelvic CT with varying use of contrast agents in hospitalized patients. Methods A retrospective review of all hospital inpatients (3/1/07-5/31/07) who underwent urgent or emergent abdominal/pelvic CT with any combination of contrast, intravenous (IV), oral, rectal, or unenhanced for a suspected acute abdominal process was performed. Data collected included demographics, combination of contrast used, CT diagnosis, time from CT scan to subsequent intervention, intervention type, and actual diagnosis of the acute abdominal process. Accuracy of CT was compared between enhanced and unenhanced imaging using Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 661 patients were identified. Use of IV contrast alone was found in 54.2% of CT scans and was correct in 92.5% of cases. IV and oral contrast was used in 22.2% of CT scans and was 94.6% correct. Unenhanced imaging was performed in 16.2% and was correct in 92.5%. Oral contrast alone was used in 7.0% and was 93.5% correct. There was no significant difference in the ability to correctly diagnose a suspected acute abdominal process when enhanced CT imaging was compared to unenhanced (p > 0.05). Conclusions CT contrast administration in critically ill hospitalized patients is not necessary to accurately diagnose an acute abdominal process. Eliminating the use of contrast may improve patient comfort, decrease patient risk, and minimize financial cost.

AB - Background : There are limited data available on the ability of computed tomography (CT) to accurately diagnose abdominopelvic pathology in acutely ill inpatients suspected of having an acute abdominal process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal/pelvic CT with varying use of contrast agents in hospitalized patients. Methods A retrospective review of all hospital inpatients (3/1/07-5/31/07) who underwent urgent or emergent abdominal/pelvic CT with any combination of contrast, intravenous (IV), oral, rectal, or unenhanced for a suspected acute abdominal process was performed. Data collected included demographics, combination of contrast used, CT diagnosis, time from CT scan to subsequent intervention, intervention type, and actual diagnosis of the acute abdominal process. Accuracy of CT was compared between enhanced and unenhanced imaging using Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 661 patients were identified. Use of IV contrast alone was found in 54.2% of CT scans and was correct in 92.5% of cases. IV and oral contrast was used in 22.2% of CT scans and was 94.6% correct. Unenhanced imaging was performed in 16.2% and was correct in 92.5%. Oral contrast alone was used in 7.0% and was 93.5% correct. There was no significant difference in the ability to correctly diagnose a suspected acute abdominal process when enhanced CT imaging was compared to unenhanced (p > 0.05). Conclusions CT contrast administration in critically ill hospitalized patients is not necessary to accurately diagnose an acute abdominal process. Eliminating the use of contrast may improve patient comfort, decrease patient risk, and minimize financial cost.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952420658&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952420658&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00268-009-0379-6

DO - 10.1007/s00268-009-0379-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 20054539

AN - SCOPUS:77952420658

VL - 34

SP - 699

EP - 703

JO - Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference

JF - Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference

SN - 0364-2313

IS - 4

ER -