Cargando…

Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focuse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thurston, Kristy, Magge, Suma, Fuller, Robert, Voytovich, Anthony, Lee, Jessica, Kozol, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4806823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27147834
_version_ 1782423292302327808
author Thurston, Kristy
Magge, Suma
Fuller, Robert
Voytovich, Anthony
Lee, Jessica
Kozol, Robert
author_facet Thurston, Kristy
Magge, Suma
Fuller, Robert
Voytovich, Anthony
Lee, Jessica
Kozol, Robert
author_sort Thurston, Kristy
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. METHODS: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. CONCLUSION: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the “screening” CT group (when comparing emergency physicians’ pre- and post-CT treatment plans).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4806823
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48068232016-05-04 Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department Thurston, Kristy Magge, Suma Fuller, Robert Voytovich, Anthony Lee, Jessica Kozol, Robert Open Access Emerg Med Original Research OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. METHODS: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. CONCLUSION: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the “screening” CT group (when comparing emergency physicians’ pre- and post-CT treatment plans). Dove Medical Press 2010-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4806823/ /pubmed/27147834 Text en © 2010 Thurston et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Thurston, Kristy
Magge, Suma
Fuller, Robert
Voytovich, Anthony
Lee, Jessica
Kozol, Robert
Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
title Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
title_full Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
title_fullStr Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
title_full_unstemmed Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
title_short Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
title_sort focused versus screening ct scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4806823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27147834
work_keys_str_mv AT thurstonkristy focusedversusscreeningctscansforevaluationofnontraumaticabdominalpainintheemergencydepartment
AT maggesuma focusedversusscreeningctscansforevaluationofnontraumaticabdominalpainintheemergencydepartment
AT fullerrobert focusedversusscreeningctscansforevaluationofnontraumaticabdominalpainintheemergencydepartment
AT voytovichanthony focusedversusscreeningctscansforevaluationofnontraumaticabdominalpainintheemergencydepartment
AT leejessica focusedversusscreeningctscansforevaluationofnontraumaticabdominalpainintheemergencydepartment
AT kozolrobert focusedversusscreeningctscansforevaluationofnontraumaticabdominalpainintheemergencydepartment