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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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