Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis

Comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast-enhanced CT and unenhanced MR imaging in patients suspected of having appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of imaging strategies with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomographic (CT) imaging in adult patients suspected of having appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to study initiation, and patients gave written informed consent. In a multicenter diagnostic performance study, adults suspected of having appendicitis were prospectively identified in the emergency department. Consenting patients underwent ultrasonography (US) and subsequent contrast-enhanced CT if US imaging yielded negative or inconclusive results. Additionally, all patients underwent unenhanced MR imaging, with the reader blinded to other findings. An expert panel assigned final diagnosis after 3 months. Diagnostic performance of three imaging strategies was evaluated: conditional CT after US, conditional MR imaging after US, and immediate MR imaging. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing findings with final diagnosis.

RESULTS

Between March and September 2010, 229 US, 115 CT, and 223 MR examinations were performed in 230 patients (median age, 35 years; 40% men). Appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 118 cases. Conditional and immediate MR imaging had sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of conditional CT, which resulted in 3% (three of 118; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%, 7%) missed appendicitis, and 8% (10 of 125; 95% CI: 4%, 14%) false-positives. Conditional MR missed appendicitis in 2% (two of 118; 95% CI: 0%, 6%) and generated 10% (13 of 129; 95% CI: 6%, 16%) false-positives. Immediate MR missed 3% (four of 117; 95% CI: 1%, 8%) appendicitis with 6% (seven of 120; 95% CI: 3%, 12%) false-positives. Conditional strategies resulted in more false-positives in women than in men (conditional CT, 17% vs 0%; P = .03; conditional MR, 19% vs 1%; P = .04), wherease immediate MR imaging did not.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of conditional or immediate MR imaging was similar to that of conditional CT in patients suspected of having appendicitis, which implied that strategies with MR imaging may replace conditional CT for appendicitis detection.

Negative appendicectomy rate as a quality metric in the management of appendicitis: impact of computed tomography, Alvarado score and the definition of negative appendicectomy

INTRODUCTION

The negative appendicectomy rate (NAR) is a quality metric in the management of appendicitis. While computed tomography (CT) has been associated with a low NAR, Alvarado scoring produces an acceptable NAR. The definition of negative appendicectomy may affect the NAR. This study examined the impact of CT, Alvarado score and definition on the NAR.

METHODS

The charts of 1,306 emergency appendicectomy patients from 1996 to 2010 were reviewed. Three five-year cohorts were created (Cohort A: 1996-2000, Cohort B: 2001-2005, Cohort C: 2006-2010) and the NAR was calculated for each cohort using two definitions of negative appendicectomy: absence of inflammation (NAR-STD) and absence of intramural neutrophils (NAR-STR). NAR-STD was correlated to the CT rate for Cohorts B and C and also to Alvarado score for Cohort C.

RESULTS

When the definition of negative appendicectomy was changed, the NAR rose from 9.2% to 15.8% (p=0.0097) for Cohort A, from 2.8% to 8.6% (p=0.0180) for Cohort B (CT rate: 80.6%) and from 3.0% to 6.7% (p=0.0255) for Cohort C (CT rate: 92.4%). The introduction of CT lowered NAR-STD from 1996-2000 (9.2%) to 2001-2010 (2.9%) but increasing the CT rate from 2001-2010 had no impact on the NAR. The positive predictive value for Alvarado score (98.60%) and CT (99.03%) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of a negative appendicectomy determines the NAR. CT reduces the NAR regardless of definition but routine CT is unnecessary for male patients with positive Alvarado scores. Early/mild appendicitis may resolve without surgery and CT may contribute to unnecessary surgery. Alvarado scoring allows selective use of CT in suspected appendicitis.

Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) has become the predominant test for diagnosing acute appendicitis in adults. In children and young adults, exposure to CT radiation is of particular concern. We evaluated the rate of negative (unnecessary) appendectomy after low-dose versus standard-dose abdominal CT in young adults with suspected appendicitis.

METHODS

In this single-institution, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 891 patients with suspected appendicitis to either low-dose CT (444 patients) or standard-dose CT (447 patients). The median radiation dose in terms of dose-length product was 116 mGy·cm in the low-dose group and 521 mGy·cm in the standard-dose group. The primary end point was the percentage of negative appendectomies among all nonincidental appendectomies, with a noninferiority margin of 5.5 percentage points. Secondary end points included the appendiceal perforation rate and the proportion of patients with suspected appendicitis who required additional imaging.

RESULTS

The negative appendectomy rate was 3.5% (6 of 172 patients) in the low-dose CT group and 3.2% (6 of 186 patients) in the standard-dose CT group (difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.8 to 4.6). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the appendiceal perforation rate (26.5% with low-dose CT and 23.3% with standard-dose CT, P=0.46) or the proportion of patients who needed additional imaging tests (3.2% and 1.6%, respectively; P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose CT was noninferior to standard-dose CT with respect to negative appendectomy rates in young adults with suspected appendicitis. (Funded by GE Healthcare Medical Diagnostics and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00913380.).