Cargando…
Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conditional computed tomography (CT), i.e. CT when initial ultrasound findings are negative or inconclusive, and immediate CT for patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: Data were collected within a prospective diagnostic accuracy study on ima...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4495262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25903701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3648-9 |
_version_ | 1782380224144474112 |
---|---|
author | Atema, J. J. Gans, S. L. Van Randen, A. Laméris, W. van Es, H. W. van Heesewijk, J. P. M. van Ramshorst, B. Bouma, W. H. ten Hove, W. van Keulen, E. M. Dijkgraaf, M. G. W. Bossuyt, P. M. M. Stoker, J. Boermeester, M. A. |
author_facet | Atema, J. J. Gans, S. L. Van Randen, A. Laméris, W. van Es, H. W. van Heesewijk, J. P. M. van Ramshorst, B. Bouma, W. H. ten Hove, W. van Keulen, E. M. Dijkgraaf, M. G. W. Bossuyt, P. M. M. Stoker, J. Boermeester, M. A. |
author_sort | Atema, J. J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conditional computed tomography (CT), i.e. CT when initial ultrasound findings are negative or inconclusive, and immediate CT for patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: Data were collected within a prospective diagnostic accuracy study on imaging in adults with acute abdominal pain. All patients underwent ultrasound and CT, read by different observers who were blinded from the other modality. Only patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis were included. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis to each patient after 6 months of follow-up (clinical reference standard). RESULTS: A total of 422 patients were included with final diagnosis appendicitis in 251 (60 %). For 199 patients (47 %), ultrasound findings were inconclusive or negative. Conditional CT imaging correctly identified 241 of 251 (96 %) appendicitis cases (95 %CI, 92 % to 98 %), versus 238 (95 %) with immediate CT (95 %CI, 91 % to 97 %). The specificity of conditional CT imaging was lower: 77 % (95 %CI, 70 % to 83 %) versus 87 % for immediate CT (95 %CI, 81 % to 91 %). CONCLUSION: A conditional CT strategy correctly identifies as many patients with appendicitis as an immediate CT strategy, and can halve the number of CTs needed. However, conditional CT imaging results in more false positives. KEY POINTS: • Conditional CT (CT after negative/inconclusive ultrasound findings) can be used for suspected appendicitis. • Half the number of CT examinations is needed with a conditional strategy. • Conditional CT correctly identifies as many patients with appendicitis as immediate CT. • Conditional imaging results in more false positive appendicitis cases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4495262 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44952622015-07-09 Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis Atema, J. J. Gans, S. L. Van Randen, A. Laméris, W. van Es, H. W. van Heesewijk, J. P. M. van Ramshorst, B. Bouma, W. H. ten Hove, W. van Keulen, E. M. Dijkgraaf, M. G. W. Bossuyt, P. M. M. Stoker, J. Boermeester, M. A. Eur Radiol Gastrointestinal OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conditional computed tomography (CT), i.e. CT when initial ultrasound findings are negative or inconclusive, and immediate CT for patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: Data were collected within a prospective diagnostic accuracy study on imaging in adults with acute abdominal pain. All patients underwent ultrasound and CT, read by different observers who were blinded from the other modality. Only patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis were included. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis to each patient after 6 months of follow-up (clinical reference standard). RESULTS: A total of 422 patients were included with final diagnosis appendicitis in 251 (60 %). For 199 patients (47 %), ultrasound findings were inconclusive or negative. Conditional CT imaging correctly identified 241 of 251 (96 %) appendicitis cases (95 %CI, 92 % to 98 %), versus 238 (95 %) with immediate CT (95 %CI, 91 % to 97 %). The specificity of conditional CT imaging was lower: 77 % (95 %CI, 70 % to 83 %) versus 87 % for immediate CT (95 %CI, 81 % to 91 %). CONCLUSION: A conditional CT strategy correctly identifies as many patients with appendicitis as an immediate CT strategy, and can halve the number of CTs needed. However, conditional CT imaging results in more false positives. KEY POINTS: • Conditional CT (CT after negative/inconclusive ultrasound findings) can be used for suspected appendicitis. • Half the number of CT examinations is needed with a conditional strategy. • Conditional CT correctly identifies as many patients with appendicitis as immediate CT. • Conditional imaging results in more false positive appendicitis cases. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-04-24 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4495262/ /pubmed/25903701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3648-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Gastrointestinal Atema, J. J. Gans, S. L. Van Randen, A. Laméris, W. van Es, H. W. van Heesewijk, J. P. M. van Ramshorst, B. Bouma, W. H. ten Hove, W. van Keulen, E. M. Dijkgraaf, M. G. W. Bossuyt, P. M. M. Stoker, J. Boermeester, M. A. Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis |
title | Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis |
title_full | Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis |
title_short | Comparison of Imaging Strategies with Conditional versus Immediate Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicion of Acute Appendicitis |
title_sort | comparison of imaging strategies with conditional versus immediate contrast-enhanced computed tomography in patients with clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis |
topic | Gastrointestinal |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4495262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25903701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3648-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT atemajj comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT ganssl comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT vanrandena comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT lamerisw comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT vaneshw comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT vanheesewijkjpm comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT vanramshorstb comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT boumawh comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT tenhovew comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT vankeulenem comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT dijkgraafmgw comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT bossuytpmm comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT stokerj comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis AT boermeesterma comparisonofimagingstrategieswithconditionalversusimmediatecontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyinpatientswithclinicalsuspicionofacuteappendicitis |