Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pelvic Pain in the Reproductive Age Group: 2023 Update

This review focuses on the initial imaging in the reproductive age adult population with acute pelvic pain, including patients with positive and negative beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels with suspected gynecological and nongynecological etiology. For all patients, a combination of transabdominal and transvaginal pelvic ultrasound with Doppler is usually appropriate as an initial imaging study. If nongynecological etiology in patients with negative β-hCG is suspected, then CT of the abdomen and pelvis with or without contrast is also usually appropriate. In patients with positive β-hCG and suspected nongynecological etiology, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast and MRI of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast may be appropriate. In patients with negative β-hCG and suspected gynecological etiology, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, MRI of pelvis without contrast, or MRI of pelvis with and without contrast may be appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography and ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains challenging. This review determined the current diagnostic accuracy of CT and ultrasound for suspected acute appendicitis in adults.

METHODS

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA for diagnostic test accuracy guidelines. A systematic search was undertaken in appropriate databases. Screening of potential titles and abstracts, full-text retrieval, methodological quality assessment using QUADAS, and data extraction was performed. Meta-analyses were performed for relevant subgroups, and sensitivity analysis was completed to account for outliers. GRADE was utilized to assess the certainty of findings.

RESULTS

31 studies evaluating CT, 10 evaluating US, and six evaluating both were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for CT was 0.972 [0.958, 0.981] and 0.956 [0.941, 0.967] respectively, and 0.821 [0.738, 0.882] and 0.859 [0.727, 0.933] for US, respectively. When analyzing subgroups based on the use of contrast enhancement, sensitivity and specificity was highest for CT with intravenous and oral contrast (0.992 [0.965, 0.998], 0.974 [0.936, 0.99]), compared to CT with intravenous contrast (0.955 [0.922, 0.974], 0.942 [0.916, 0.960]). Low-Dose CT produced comparable values (0.934 [0.885,0.963], 0.937 [0.911, 0.955]) relative to these subgroups and standard dose non-contrast CT (0.877 [0.774,0.937], 0.914 [0.827, 0.959]). US studies which excluded equivocal findings demonstrated significantly greater values than the remainder of US studies (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The updated diagnostic test accuracies of CT, US and relevant subgroups should be implemented in light of factors such as dose, cost, and timing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

For diagnosis of adult acute appendicitis: • CT with intravenous plus oral contrast enhancement yields statistically significantly greater diagnostic accuracy than CT with intravenous contrast alone. • Low-dose CT yields comparable sensitivity and specificity to standard-dose CT. • Ultrasound studies which exclude equivocal results may overinflate sensitivity and specificity.

Systematic Review: The Role of Intravenous and Oral Contrast in the Computed Tomography Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review provides practicing emergency physicians updated information regarding the role of oral and intravenous contrast in the computed tomography (CT) evaluation of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was conducted from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2018 and limited to human clinical trials written in English with relevant keywords. High-quality studies were identified and then underwent a structured review. Recommendations are made based on the literature review.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven articles met criteria for rigorous review, of which 14 were appropriate for citation in this review. Excellent evidence shows that oral contrast does not improve the test characteristics of CT with intravenous contrast (IVCT) in the evaluation of adults suspected of having acute appendicitis. Good evidence shows that noncontrast abdominal CTs have excellent test characteristics for this same group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its downsides and lack of utility, the medical literature does not support using oral contrast in the evaluation of acute appendicitis. There is no direct evidence showing that IVCT is better than a noncontrast CT in the evaluation of acute appendicitis; however, the available literature is consistent with slightly better test characteristics for IVCTs. Still, if IVCT cannot be obtained in a timely manner, noncontrast CTs are extremely accurate in detecting this disease.

Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective Our primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis. Secondary objectives Our secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.

A pictorial essay of the most atypical variants of the vermiform appendix position in computed tomography with their possible clinical implications

Purpose

The tip of the appendix may be located in various areas of the abdominal cavity due to its variable length and/or the changeable position of the caecum. Although in the case of an atypical position the tip is usually located behind the caecum, there are possible locations that occur very rarely. Therefore, in the case of appendicitis the symptoms may lead to the wrong diagnosis. The aim of this study is to present the most atypical locations of the tip of the appendix found on CT (computed tomography) scans and thus help to avoid misdiagnoses.

Imaging findings

The most unusual locations of the tip of the appendix found in healthy subjects included: left inferior quadrant, along the lower edge of the liver near the gallbladder and the right kidney, the tip touching the duodenum, the rectum or appendages, and a long appendix located in the scrotum as the content of a hernia. In these positions, appendicitis may mimic acute diverticulitis, cholecystitis, duodenal ulcer, duodenitis, enteritis, or adnexal or testis pathologies.

Conclusions

It is important to be aware of atypical locations of the appendix because appendicitis in an unusual area may mimic other acute abdominal diseases and delay the proper treatment.

Accuracy and reliability of tablet computer as an imaging console for detection of radiological signs of acute appendicitis using PACS workstation as reference standard

PURPOSE

To ascertain the accuracy and reliability of tablet as an imaging console for detection of radiological signs of acute appendicitis [on focused appendiceal computed tomography (FACT)] using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) workstation as reference standard.

METHODS

From January, 2014 to June, 2015, 225 patients underwent FACT at our institution. These scans were blindly re-interpreted by an independent consultant radiologist, first on PACS workstation and, two weeks later, on tablet. Scans were interpreted for the presence of radiological signs of acute appendicitis. Accuracy of tablet was calculated using PACS as reference standard. Kappa (κ) statistics were calculated as a measure of reliability.

RESULTS

Of 225 patients, 99 had radiological evidence of acute appendicitis on PACS workstation. Tablet was 100% accurate in detecting radiological signs of acute appendicitis. Appendicoliths, free fluid, lymphadenopathy, phlegmon/abscess, and perforation were identified on PACS in 90, 43, 39, 10, and 12 scans, respectively. There was excellent agreement between tablet and PACS for detection of appendicolith (к = 0.924), phlegmon/abscess (к = 0.904), free fluid (к = 0.863), lymphadenopathy (к = 0.879), and perforation (к = 0.904).

CONCLUSIONS

Tablet computer, as an imaging console, was highly reliable and was as accurate as PACS workstation for the radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Diagnostic Usefulness of Low-Dose Nonenhanced Computed Tomography With Coronal Reformations in Patients With Suspected Acute Appendicitis: A Comparison With Standard-Dose Computed Tomography

PURPOSE

The aims of the study were to evaluate the usefulness of low-dose (LD) nonenhanced CT (NECT) with coronal reformation in diagnosing acute appendicitis and to compare LD NECT with standard-dose (SD) NECT and SD contrast-enhanced CT (CECT).

METHODS

A total of 452 patients suspected of having acute appendicitis underwent CT using a scan 1 (SD NECT and SD CECT1, n = 182) or a scan 2 protocol (LD NECT and SD CECT2, n = 270). The diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement for diagnosing acute appendicitis were compared.

RESULTS

Although the area under the curves of both reviewers of LD NECT were lower than those of SD CECT2, area under the curves of both reviewers for SD NECT were not significantly different for SD CECT1 and LD NECT (all P > 0.05). The interobserver agreements within each scan were excellent (all κ > 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose NECT with coronal reformation showed high diagnostic performance and can be used as the first-line imaging tool in the work-up of patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

Appendiceal location analysis and review of the misdiagnosis rate of appendicitis associated with deep pelvic cecum on multidetector computed tomography

OBJECTIVE

To investigate appendiceal location and misdiagnosis rate of appendicitis associated with deep pelvic cecum on multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 1107 appendicitis cases, 25 patients with deep pelvic cecum and 75 patients with conventional cecum on MDCT were retrospectively selected for analysis of appendiceal locations and preoperative misdiagnosis rate.

RESULTS

The major appendiceal direction in deep pelvic cecum group was ascending (84.0%). The misdiagnosis rates of appendicitis in deep pelvic and conventional cecum groups were 16% and 5.3%.

CONCLUSION

A deep pelvic cecum may cause misdiagnosis of appendicitis. The appendix associated with deep pelvic cecum mainly demonstrates right ascending direction.

Enteric Distribution of Oral Contrast in Emergency Department Patients Undergoing Abdominal-Pelvic Computed Tomography

PURPOSE

The study sought to assess the gastrointestinal (GI) distribution of oral contrast (OC) among emergency department (ED) patients and determine if contrast reaches the terminal ileum or site of pathology to assist in diagnosis.

METHODS

Retrospectively, adults undergoing abdominal-pelvic computed tomography (APCT) in the ED at 2 hospitals were identified over a 3-month period. APCTs were reviewed for location of OC. Presence, site, type of bowel pathology, and prior gastrointestinal surgery were documented. When applicable, the site of bowel pathology was evaluated for the presence or absence of OC.

RESULTS

There were 1349 exams with mean age 50.5 years (range 18-97 years), 41% male, with 530 (39%) receiving OC. In 271 of 530 (51%), OC reached the terminal ileum (TI). Bowel pathology was present in 31% of cases (165 of 530). When bowel pathology was present, 47% (77 of 165) had OC present at the pathology site. The GI tract was divided into 4 anatomic segments: OC most frequently reached pathology in stomach and duodenum (84%), but was present less frequently at sites of pathology from jejunum to TI (35%), proximal colon (57%), and distal colon (28%). In only 84 of 530 OC cases (16%) did contrast extend from the stomach to distal colon. OC administration contributed to longer mean APCT order to final report of 0.5 hours and longer mean ED length of stay of 0.8 hours compared with all patients who received APCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal OC distribution is not achieved in more than half of ED patients, raising questions about the continued use of OC in the ED.

Does limiting oral contrast decrease emergency department length of stay?

Introduction:

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact on emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) of a new protocol for intravenous (IV)-contrast only abdominal/pelvic computed tomography (ABCT) compared to historical controls.

Methods:

This was a retrospective case-controlled study performed at a single academic medical center. Patients ≥ 18 undergoing ABCT imaging for non-traumatic abdominal pain were included in the study. We compared ED LOS between historical controls undergoing ABCT imaging with PO/IV contrast and study patients undergoing an IV-contrast-only protocol. Imaging indications were the same for both groups and included patients with clinical suspicion for appendicitis, diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, or perforation. We identified all patients from the hospital’s electronic storehouse (imaging code, ordering department, imaging times), and we abstracted ED LOS and disposition from electronic medical records.

Results:

Two hundred and eleven patients who underwent PO/IV ABCT prep were compared to 184 patients undergoing IV-contrast only ABCT prep. ED LOS was shorter for patients imaged with the IV-contrast only protocol (4:35 hrs vs. 6:39 hrs, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Implementation of an IV-contrast only ABCT prep for select ED patients presenting for evaluation of acute abdominal pain significantly decreased ED LOS.

Whether intravenous contrast is necessary for CT diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult ED patients?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the necessity of intravenous contrast medium for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) diagnosis of acute appendicitis (APP) among adult patients with right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain at emergency department (ED).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ED patients with clinical suspicion of APP from RLQ pain for a period of 8 months were enrolled retrospectively. Both pre- and postintravenous contrast-enhanced CT scans were performed for these patients. The visibility of vermiform appendix and specific CT findings of APP were recorded separately for noncontrast CT (NCT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CCT) images without knowledge of the patient's identity and final diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of CT diagnosis for APP were compared between the two groups. The ease of identifying appendix was also compared.

RESULTS

Forty-two (42.0%) of the 100 patients (55 males, 45 females; age range, 16-90 years; mean age, 49.3 years) were APP. There was no significant difference for the visibility of appendix (94% vs. 91%; P = .589) and radiological characters between the CCT and NCT groups. There were significant differences between the two groups for sensitivity (100% vs. 90.5%; P = .036), specificity (94.8% vs. 100%; P = .038), PPV (93.3% vs. 100%; P = .021), NPV (100% vs. 93.5%; P = .021), but no significant difference for accuracy (97% vs. 96%; P = 1). The appendix was easier to detect on CCT than NCT images (P = .013).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic sensitivity of CCT was significantly better than that of NCT. Intravenous contrast administration could also make doctors easier in indentifying appendixes.

Acute appendicitis presenting as acute gastritis in an adult patient with undiagnosed congenital gut malrotation: a case report

BACKGROUND

We report a case of an atypical presentation of acute appendicitis in an adult due to an undiagnosed congenital gut malrotation.

OBJECTIVE

The obvious benefit of observation with serial examinations followed by the use of computed tomography (CT) is discussed in aiding in the diagnosis for atypical presentations of appendicitis.

CASE REPORT

A 45-year-old man who presented with epigastric pain and vomiting was diagnosed with acute left-sided appendicitis on CT scan. The patient's appendix was located in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen due to undiagnosed congenital gut malrotation, thus resulting in an atypical presentation of a common illness.

CONCLUSION

Observation with serial examinations, followed by CT scanning if indicated, is an invaluable strategy to use in diagnosing atypical presentations of common pathology.

Clinical policy: Critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is an update of a 2000 clinical policy on the evaluation and management of patients presenting with nontraumatic acute abdominal pain.1 A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1)Can clinical findings be used to guide decision making in the risk stratification of patients with possible appendicitis? (2) In adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis who are undergoing a computed tomography scan, what is the role of contrast? (3) In children with suspected acute appendicitis who undergo diagnostic imaging, what are the roles of computed tomography and ultrasound in diagnosing acute appendicitis?Evidence was graded and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast computed tomography for appendicitis in adults: a systematic review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We seek to determine the diagnostic test characteristics of noncontrast computed tomography (CT) for appendicitis in the adult emergency department (ED) population.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of previous systematic reviews. Included studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast CT for acute appendicitis in adults by using the final diagnosis at surgery or follow-up at a minimum of 2 weeks as the reference standard. Studies were included only if the CT was completed using a multislice helical scanner. Two authors independently conducted the relevance screen of titles and abstracts, selected studies for the final inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Consensus was reached by conference, and any disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Unenhanced CT test performance was assessed with summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, with independently pooled sensitivity and specificity values across studies.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1,258 publications; 7 studies met the inclusion criteria and provided a sample of 1,060 patients. The included studies were of high methodological quality with respect to appropriate patient spectrum and reference standard. Our pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 92.7% (95% confidence interval 89.5% to 95.0%) and 96.1% (95% confidence interval 94.2% to 97.5%), respectively; the positive likelihood ratio=24 and the negative likelihood ratio=0.08.

CONCLUSION

We found the diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the adult population to be adequate for clinical decisionmaking in the ED setting.

Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT scans

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare low-dose unenhanced CT with standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred seven adults with suspected appendicitis underwent CT with mean effective doses of both 4.2 and 8.0 mSv. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed thin-section images by sliding a 5-mm-thick ray-sum slab. They rated the likelihood of appendicitis and appendiceal visualization on 5- and 3-point scales, respectively, and proposed alternative diagnoses. Likelihood > or = 3 was considered a positive diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis, the McNemar test, and the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test were used.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients had appendicitis. The values of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve were 0.98 for the low-dose unenhanced acquisition and 0.97 for the standard-dose contrast-enhanced acquisition for reader 1 (95% CI for the difference, -0.02 to 0.03) and 0.99 and 0.98 (-0.02 to 0.02) for reader 2. Sensitivity was 98.7% for low-dose unenhanced CT and 100% for standard-dose contrast-enhanced CT for reader 1 (p = 1.00) and 100% for both techniques for reader 2. Specificity was 95.3% and 93.0% (p = 0.25) and 96.9% and 96.9%. The interpretation was indeterminate (score 3) in 0.5% and 1.4% of cases for reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 0.5% and 0% for reader 2 (p = 1.00). A normal appendix was not visualized in 5.4% and 3.9% of cases by reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 3.9% and 2.3% of cases by reader 2 (p = 0.50). None of the patients whose appendix was not visualized had appendicitis. Diagnostic confidence, visualization score for a normal appendix, and correct alternative diagnosis tended to be compromised with use of low-dose unenhanced CT, showing a significant difference for a reader's confidence in the diagnosis of appendicitis (p = 0.004). The two techniques were comparable in the diagnosis of appendiceal perforation.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose unenhanced CT is potentially useful in the diagnosis of appendicitis.

Difficulties in the diagnosis of appendicitis: review of CT and US images

To determine the reasons for missing a distended appendix, we discuss cases of acute appendicitis in which either or both computed tomography (CT) and/or ultrasonography (US) initially failed to detect distended appendix. In some cases, distended appendices that were undetected on US were easily detected by CT, and vice versa. Failure to detect a distended appendix does not always eliminate the possibility of acute appendicitis.