A randomized, controlled trial of routine early abdominal computed tomography in patients presenting with non-specific acute abdominal pain

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Left Lower Quadrant Pain: 2023 Update

The differential diagnosis for left lower quadrant pain is wide and conditions range from the benign and self-limited to life-threatening surgical emergencies. Along with patient history, physical examination, and laboratory tests, imaging is often critical to limit the differential diagnosis and identify life-threatening abnormalities. This document will discuss the guidelines for the appropriate use of imaging in the initial workup for patients who present with left lower quadrant pain, patients with suspected diverticulitis, and patients with suspected complications from diverticulitis. 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.

Pyelonephritis of an ectopic right kidney pretending as acute appendicitis: An unusual case

Introduction

Acute appendicitis is a common condition presenting in emergency department. A patient presenting with pain associated with fever, and tenderness in the right iliac fossa will be suspected to have Acute Appendicitis. However a variety of other clinical conditions may have similar features and may be required to be excluded. Acute pyelonephritis in an ectopic right kidney is a rare clinical condition which may mimic Acute Appendicitis.

Case presentation

We present a middle-age male with complaints of pain in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen with high grade fever for one week. Clinical suspicion and initial ultrasonography (USG) of abdomen supported the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The patient was initially managed conservatively and later non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scan was done that revealed right ectopic kidney with acute pyelonephritis. The appendix was within normal limits on NCCT scan.

Discussion

Ectopic kidneys result from anomalies of ascend which can result in several complications depending upon its position. Acute appendicitis can also cause pyuria and may mimic urosepsis amounting to its close anatomical proximity to urinary bladder. An un-ascended ectopic kidney with pyelonephritis mimicking acute appendicitis is a rare occurrence. USG and CT scan are important tools in the differential diagnosis but however, USG is greatly operator dependent; CT scan provides excellent diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion

This case report signifies importance of NCCT abdomen in accurate diagnosis of conditions featuring as right lower abdominal pain and fever. Also emphasizing significance of NCCT prior to any surgical intervention, if any conflict of diagnosis occurs.

•

Right lower abdomen pain and fever are most commonly attributed to acute appendicitis.

•

Cases are reported in past with co-existing pyelonephritis and appendicitis as well as pyelonephritis mimicking appendicitis.

•

Pyelonephritis in ectopic kidney and appendicitis are very hard to differentiate on basis of history and lab parameters.

•

NCCT abdomen can serve as augmented imaging modality in such cases with diagnostic dilemmas.

Machine learning for selecting patients with Crohn's disease for abdominopelvic computed tomography in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) frequently undergo abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) in the emergency department (ED). It's essential to diagnose clinically actionable findings (CAF) as they may need immediate intervention, frequently surgical. However, repeated APCT's includes increased ionizing radiation exposure. Guidance regarding APCT performance is mostly clinical and empiric.

AIMS

We used a machine learning (ML) approach for predicting CAF on APCT in the ED.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with CD who presented to the ED and underwent APCT. CAF were defined as bowel obstruction, perforation, intra-abdominal abscess or complicated fistula. ML was used to predict the probability of having CAF on APCT, using routine clinical variables.

RESULTS

Of 101 admissions included, 44 (43.5%) had CAF on APCT. ML successfully identified patients at low (NPV 91.6%, CI-95% 90.6-92.5) and high (PPV 92.8%, CI-95%, 92.3-93.2) risk for CAF (AUROC = 0.774), using beats-per-minute, mean arterial pressure, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and sex. This allowed the construction of a risk stratification scheme according to patients' probability for CAF on APCT.

CONCLUSION

We present a novel artificial intelligence-based approach, utilizing readily available clinical variables to better select patients with CD in the ED for APCT. This might reduce the number of APCTs performed, avoiding related hazards while ensuring high-risk patients undergo APCT.

Association of Pain Location With Computed Tomography Abnormalities in Emergeny Department Patients With Abdominal Pain

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade the usage of computed tomography (CT) imaging has risen dramatically in emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal pain. Recognizing the potential disadvantages of overuse of CT imaging, efforts are being made to reduce imaging.

OBJECTIVE

We determined the operating characteristics for location of abdominal pain for the entities of acute appendicitis, diverticulitis, and intestinal obstruction. We hypothesized that patients with pain localized to the upper abdomen would be less likely to have CT abnormalities than those with lower abdominal pain.

METHODS

This is a prospective, observational registry of ED patients with abdominal pain, performed in an academic, suburban ED with an annual census of 110,000. Presence of clinically significant CT abnormalities (e.g., appendicitis, diverticulitis, bowel obstruction) were recorded along with clinical variables including laboratory values, vital signs, reported location of pain, location of tenderness on examination, and physician pretest probability.

RESULTS

A convenience sample of 1154 patients was enrolled. Of all patients, 273 cases (24%) had abnormal CT results, including appendicitis (n = 95), diverticulitis (n = 133), and bowel obstruction (n = 49). Right upper quadrant pain was negatively associated with abnormal CT (p = 0.02). Clinician gestalt was highly specific, but lacked sensitivity for the diagnosis of appendicitis, diverticulitis, and obstruction. Twenty-four percent of patients diagnosed with appendicitis had no right lower quadrant pain or tenderness, and 7% of patients with diverticulitis had no left lower quadrant pain or tenderness.

CONCLUSIONS

Localization of abdominal pain by history or physical examination is not sufficient to accurately diagnose intra-abdominal pathology, especially cases of acute appendicitis, diverticulitis, or intestinal obstruction.

Routine versus selective computed tomography in non-traumatic acute abdominal pain: meta-analysis of randomised trials

PURPOSE

To compare the routine vs. selective use of computed tomography (CT) in patients presenting with non-traumatic acute abdominal pain (AAP) to a surgical service.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes according to PRISMA statement standards to compare the routine vs. selective use of CT in adult patients presenting with non-traumatic AAP.

RESULTS

Analysis of 722 patients from 4 randomised controlled trials showed no difference between the routine CT and selective CT groups in terms of proportion of correct diagnoses (OR 1.36,95% CI 0.89, 2.07, P = 0.15), mortality (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.08, 0.02, P = 0.27] and length of hospital stay (LOS) [MD - 0.26, 95% CI - 2.07, 1.55, P = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of CT does not improve the proportion of correct diagnoses and mortality compared to selective use of CT in adult patients with non-traumatic AAP. The available evidence regarding the influence of routine CT on LOS may be subject to type 2 error. These findings, however, may not apply to the elderly patient with AAP and further studies are required.

Generalist versus Abdominal Subspecialist Radiologist Interpretations of Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography Performed on Patients with Abdominal Pain and its Impact on the Therapeutic Approach

Introduction:

Abdominal pain is one of the most common patient complaints in the emergency department (ED) and abdominopelvic computed tomography (ACT) scan plays an important role in evaluation of these patients.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to determine the differences between interpretations by generalist radiologists and abdominal subspecialist radiologists regarding the abdominopelvic computed tomography (ACT) of patients who were admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) and to investigate its effect on the patients’ therapeutic approach.

Methods:

The records of 16452 patients who were admitted to the emergency department with complaint of abdominal pain between January 2015 and April 2017 were reviewed, retrospectively. Out of these patients, 245 (1.5%) underwent ACT for differential diagnosis and among them, 137 (0.8%) patients had their ACT reports evaluated by generalist radiologists in 45 minutes and by abdominal subspecialist radiologist 8–12 hours later and were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups according to the effect of ACT reports on the performed treatment. Group 1: no effect on planned treatment, group 2: minor effect on planned treatment, which did not result in a change in the treatment process and group 3: major effect on planned treatment approach, which resulted in a change in the treatment process. These changes included at least one of the two criteria: changing the indication of surgery from emergency surgery to elective surgery and/or discharge of the patient from the ED, when actually hospitalization was required.

Results:

Out of the 137 patients, 87 (63.5%) were male, 50 (36.5%) were female and the patients’ mean age was 56 (27–93) years. There were 117 (85.4%) patients in group 1, 15 (10.9%) patients in group 2, and 5 (3.7%) patients in group 3. We determined minor inconsistency between the reports in group 2 and major inconsistency in group 3. Patients in group 3 suffered from delayed surgical intervention due to inconsistency of the CT reports resulting in prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity. In 17 patients (four patients in Group 1 and 13 patients in Group 2) treatment plan was changed due to CT results; and while surgical treatment was planned for them prior to CT scan, they were discharged with medical treatment after that and overtreatment was prevented.

Conclusion:

Contribution of abdominal radiologists to evaluation of ACT images in the ED would reduce the inconsistency in ACT reports and prevent the patients from receiving insufficient treatment or overtreatment.

Evaluation of the CT Scan as the First Examination for the Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategy for Acute Cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

The CT scan has supplanted the abdominal ultrasound for emergency examinations. A comparison of CT scan and ultrasound performance for the diagnosis and management of acute cholecystitis in acute care was proposed. The hypothesis is that the CT scan may be sufficient for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, which would allow faster progress to surgery.

METHODS

The retrospective study of consecutive patients operated for acute cholecystitis or gallbladder distension with pre-operative imaging within 48 h in one centre.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 341 cholecystectomies were performed in our centre. The analysis involved 120 patients. Ultrasound had better sensitivity than the CT scan, respectively, 79.4% [70.5-86.6] and 52.3% [42.5-62.1], but less specificity, with 61.5% [31.6-86.1] and 92.3% [64.0-99.8], respectively. However, there was a significant difference in favour of the CT scan for the diagnosis of complicated cholecystitis (p 0.004). The positive likelihood ratio of complicated cholecystitis is better at CT scan (7.8) [2.7-23.1] than in ultrasound (1.0) [0.1-9.7]. CT scan and ultrasound are equivalent for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, but CT scan is more efficient for the diagnosis of complicated cases (Youden index J 0.3 vs 0.001).

CONCLUSION

It is possible to place the surgical indication of cholecystectomy on the only data of the CT scan. We propose a decision-making algorithm that uses the CT scan to make the diagnosis and decide on emergency treatment for complicated cases or that allows us to propose a delayed surgery for simple cholecystitis.

Is the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy a real contraindication to perform intravenous contrast enhanced Computed Tomography for non-traumatic acute abdomen in Emergency Surgery Department?

BACKGROUND

Contrast enhanced Computed Tomography (CCT) is the most used imaging test to investigate acute abdominal clinical conditions, because of its high sensitivity and specificity. It is mandatory to make a correct and prompt diagnosis when life threatening abdominal diseases as mesenteric ischemia are suspected. Contrast medium administration was linked to acute renal failure, therefore radiologist often prefer to perform CCT without contrast in patients needing to undergo the exam with increased serum creatinine.  The aim of the review was to focus on the incidence of contrast induced nephropathy in patients presenting non-traumatic acute abdominal clinical conditions, who underwent CCT with intravenous contrast agent administration in emergency setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review protocol was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P). Quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

The strongest currently available evidence on the incidence of post-contrast acute kidney injury (AKI) following intravenous contrast agent administration consists in a meta-analysis of observational studies. Data extracted from meta-analyses demonstrate that, compared with non-contrast CT, CCT was not significantly associated with AKI. Moreover, the risk of AKI (RR=0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62, 1.02; P=.07), death (RR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.55, 1.67; P=.87), and dialysis (RR=0.88; 95% CI: 0.23, 3.43; P=.85) is similar, compared with the risk of AKI in the non-contrast medium group. Furthermore, intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material is a nephrotoxic risk factor, but not in patients with a stable SCr level less than 1.5 mg/dL, therefore many factors other than contrast material could affect PC-AKI rates.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of diagnostic information gained from contrast enhanced TC in assessing AA are fundamental in some clinical scenarios. The risk of contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is negligible in patients with normal renal function but the incidence appears to rise to as high as 25% in patients with pre-existing renal impairment or in the presence of risk factors such as diabetes, advanced age, vascular disease and use of certain concurrent medications. The incidence of CIN/AKI after intravenous contrast administration is very low in general population. Radiologists and referring physicians should be familiar with the risk factors for renal disease, CIN and preventing measures.

Emergency Department Computed Tomography Use for Non-traumatic Abdominal Pain: Minimal Variability

Introduction

Variability in the use of computed tomography (CT) between providers in the emergency department (ED) suggests that CT is ordered on a provider rather than a patient level. We aimed to evaluate the variability of CT ordering practices for non-traumatic abdominal pain (NTAP) across physicians in the ED using patient-visit and physician-level factors.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study among 6,409 ED visits for NTAP from January 1 to December 31, 2012, at a large, urban, academic, tertiary-care hospital. We used a two-level hierarchical logistic regression model to estimate inter-physician variation. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated.

Results

The hierarchical logistic regression analyses showed that patient-visit factors including younger age, arrival mode by ambulance, prior CT, >79 ED arrivals in the previous four hours, and ultrasound had statistically significant negative associations with physician CT ordering, while surgical team admission and white blood count (WBC) >12.5 K/millimeter cubed (mm³) had statistically significant positive associations with physician CT ordering. With physician-level factors, only physicians with >21 years experience after medical school graduation showed statistical significance negatively associated with physician CT ordering. Our data demonstrated increased CT ordering from the mean in only one out of 43 providers (2.3%), which indicated limited variation across physicians to order CT. After adjusting for patient-visit and physician-level factors, the calculated ICC was 1.46%.

Conclusion

We found minimal physician variability in CT ordering practices for NTAP. Patient-visit factors such as age, arrival mode, admission team, prior CT, ED arrivals in previous four hours, ultrasound, and WBC count were found to largely influence CT ordering practices.

Secondary peritonitis: principles of diagnosis and intervention

Secondary peritonitis accounts for 1% of urgent or emergent hospital admissions and is the second leading cause of sepsis in patients in intensive care units globally. Overall mortality is 6%, but mortality rises to 35% in patients who develop severe sepsis. Despite the dramatic growth in the availability and use of imaging and laboratory tests, the rapid diagnosis and early management of peritonitis remains a challenge for physicians in emergency medicine, surgery, and critical care. In this article, we review the pathophysiology of peritonitis and its potential progression to sepsis, discuss the utility and limitations of the physical examination and laboratory and radiographic tests, and present a paradigm for the management of secondary peritonitis.

Utility of multiple rule out CT screening of high-risk atraumatic patients in an emergency department-a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Several large trials have evaluated the effect of CT screening based on specific symptoms, with varying outcomes. Screening of patients with CT based on their prognosis alone has not been examined before. For moderate-to-high risk patients presenting in the emergency department (ED), the potential gain from a CT scan might outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. We hypothesized that an accelerated "multiple rule out" CT screening of moderate-to-high risk patients will detect many clinically unrecognized diagnoses that affect change in treatment.

METHOD

Patients ≥ 40 years, triaged as high-risk or moderate-to-high risk according to vital signs, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were scanned with a combined ECG-gated and dual energy CT scan of cerebrum, thorax, and abdomen. The impact of the CT scan on patient diagnosis and treatment was examined prospectively by an expert panel.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included in the study, (53% female, mean age 73 years [age range, 43-93]). The scan lead to change in treatment or additional examinations in 37 (37%) patients, of which 24 (24%) were diagnostically significant, change in acute treatment in 11 (11%) cases and previously unrecognized malignant tumors in 10 (10%) cases. The mean size specific radiation dose was 15.9 mSv (± 3.1 mSv).

CONCLUSION

Screening with a multi-rule out CT scan of high-risk patients in an ED is feasible and result in discovery of clinically unrecognized diagnoses and malignant tumors, but at the cost of radiation exposure and downstream examinations. The clinical impact of these findings should be evaluated in a larger randomized cohort.

The Diagnostic Utility and Clinical Impact of After-Hours CT Scans of the Abdomen and Pelvis Investigating Abdominal Pain

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility and impact on clinical management of after-hours CT scans investigating abdominal pain in surgical patients.

Methods

After-hours CT A/P reports investigating the acute surgical abdomen were compared with clinical outcomes and histopathological findings to assess sensitivity and specificity of CT reporting. Comparisons between CT reports and clinical notes were made. CT scans were categorised as having direct effects on clinical management, ruling out a serious pathology, ruling out a nonserious pathology, or having no effect. Discrepancies between information in case-notes and information provided to radiologists were also analysed.

Results

79 clinical notes were located. After-hours CT demonstrated 91% sensitivity and 82% reporting specificity using clinical outcomes as the standard. In the 26 patients with histopathological findings, CT reports demonstrated 91% sensitivity. In 79.7% of cases, CT scanning had an impact on management. In 35.4% of cases, an indication for scanning was not documented with variation in clinical information in 8.9% of cases.

Discussion

This study demonstrates after-hours CT A/P reports result in significant impacts on clinical management of surgical patients with acute abdominal pain. Improvements in providing information when requesting scans are however needed to facilitate accurate reporting.

CT angiography in the setting of suspected acute mesenteric ischemia: prevalence of ischemic and alternative diagnoses

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence of ischemic and alternative diagnoses and the diagnostic accuracy of CT angiography (CTA) in the setting of suspected acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included 959 patients undergoing CTA for the evaluation of suspected AMI. The final clinical diagnosis was used to determine the prevalence of ischemic and alternative diagnoses and to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of CTA. Prevalence of diagnoses by age, sex, and admission status was compared using Cochran-Armitage and χ ² tests.

RESULTS

Prevalence was 18.8% (180/959) for AMI and 61.2% (587/959) for specific alternative diagnoses. In the remaining 20.0% (192/959), no clear clinical diagnosis was established. The most frequent alternative diagnoses were small-bowel obstruction (10.4%; 61/587), infectious colitis (8.7%; 51/587), pneumonia (6.5%; 38/587), cholecystitis (6.1%; 36/587), and diverticulitis (5.6%; 33/587). Prevalence of specific alternative diagnoses varied significantly according to both age (p < .013) and admissions status (p < 0.001). CTA had a sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing AMI of 89.4%/99.5% and for alternative diagnoses of 86.7%/96.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of suspected AMI, the prevalence of ischemic and alternative diagnoses varies significantly by age, sex, and admission status. CTA provides for rapid and non-invasive assessment of ischemic and alternative diagnoses with high diagnostic accuracy.

The accuracy of interpretation of emergency abdominal CT in adult patients who present with non-traumatic abdominal pain: results of a UK national audit

AIM

To evaluate major/minor discrepancy rates for provisional (initial) and addendum (supplementary senior review) emergency computed tomography (CT) reports in patients presenting with non-traumatic abdominal pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical approval for this type of study is not required in the UK. All radiology departments with an approved lead for audit registered with the Royal College of Radiologists were invited to participate in this retrospective audit. The first 50 consecutive patients (25 surgical, 25 non-surgical) who underwent emergency abdominal CT for non-traumatic abdominal pain in 2013 were included. Statistical analyses were performed to identify organisational and report/patient-related variables that might be associated with major discrepancy.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine (58%) of 188 departments supplied data to the study with a total of 4,931 patients (2,568 surgical, 2,363 non-surgical). The audit standard for provisional report major discrepancy was achieved for registrars (target <10%, achieved 4.6%), for on-site consultants (target <5%, achieved 3.1%) and consultant addendum (target <5%, achieved 2.9%). Off-site reporters failed to meet the standard target (<5%, achieved 8.7% overall and 12.7% in surgical patients). The standard for patients coming to harm was not met in the surgical group (target <1%, achieved 1.5%) and was narrowly missed overall (target <1%, achieved 1%).

CONCLUSION

This study should be used to provide impetus to improve aspects of out-of-hours CT reporting. Clear benefits of CT interpretation/review by on-site and more senior (consultant) radiologists have been demonstrated.

Multidetector CT in emergency radiology: acute and generalized non-traumatic abdominal pain

Multidetector CT (MDCT) is an imaging technique that provides otherwise unobtainable information in the diagnostic work-up of patients presenting with acute abdominal pain. A correct working diagnosis depends essentially on understanding the individual patient's clinical data and laboratory findings. In haemodynamically stable patients with acute severe and generalized abdominal pain, MDCT is now the preferred imaging test and gives invaluable diagnostic information, also in unstable patients after stabilization. In this descriptive review, we focus our attention on acute, severe and generalized or undifferentiated non-traumatic abdominal pain. The main differential diagnoses are acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal perforation, ruptured abdominal aneurysm and acute mesenteric ischaemia. We will provide radiologist readers with a technical guide to optimize MDCT imaging protocols and list the major CT signs essential to reach a correct diagnosis and guide the best treatment.

Use of advanced imaging techniques during visits to emergency departments--implications, costs, patient benefits/risks

25 years ago, on a Friday evening at 9 pm, the emergency department (ED) was full of patients with a wide range of clinical problems. Their investigations included plain radiographs, but no other imaging was included until the next working day. At present, many patients are receiving advanced imaging such as ultrasound, CT and MRI, often delivered out of hours--an obvious advance for patients or sometimes an unnecessary development? In this article, we will consider how to assess patient benefits and whether increased use of advanced imaging is an overall advance for patients. We will address the general implications for healthcare services which come with greater use of advanced imaging. We will then address the effect of advanced imaging on individual fictional ED patients with a variety of complaints.

Multimodality approach for imaging of non-traumatic acute abdominal emergencies

"Acute abdomen" includes spectrum of medical and surgical conditions ranging from a less severe to life-threatening conditions in a patient presenting with severe abdominal pain that develops over a period of hours. Accurate and rapid diagnosis of these conditions helps in reducing related complications. Clinical assessment is often difficult due to availability of over-the-counter analgesics, leading to less specific physical findings. The key clinical decision is to determine whether surgical intervention is required. Laboratory and conventional radiographic findings are often non-specific. Thus, cross-sectional imaging plays a pivotal role for helping direct management of acute abdomen. Computed tomography is the primary imaging modality used for these cases due to fast image acquisition, although US is more specific for conditions such as acute cholecystitis. Magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound is very helpful in patients who are particularly sensitive to radiation exposure, such as pregnant women and pediatric patients. In addition, MRI is an excellent problem-solving modality in certain conditions such as assessment for choledocholithiasis in patients with right upper quadrant pain. In this review, we discuss a multimodality approach for the usual causes of non-traumatic acute abdomen including acute appendicitis, diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and small bowel obstruction. A brief review of other relatively less frequent but important causes of acute abdomen, such as perforated viscus and bowel ischemia, is also included.

Patients presenting at the emergency department with acute abdominal pain are less likely to be admitted to inpatient wards at times of access block: a registry study

Background

Also known as access block, shortage of inpatient beds is a common cause of emergency department (ED) boarding and overcrowding, which are both associated with impaired quality of care. Recent studies have suggested that access block not simply causes boarding in EDs, but may also result in that patients are less likely to be admitted to the hospital from the ED. The present study’s aim was to investigate whether this effect remained for patients with acute abdominal pain, for which different management strategies have emerged. Access block was defined in terms of hospital occupancy and the appropriateness of ED discharges addressed as 72 h revisits to the ED.

Methods

As a registry study of ED administrative data, the study examined a population of patients who presented with acute abdominal pain at the ED of a 420-bed hospital in southern Sweden during 2011–2013. Associations between exposure and outcomes were addressed in contingency tables and by logistic regression models.

Results

Crude analysis revealed a negative association between access block and the probability of inpatient admission (38.6 % admitted at 0–95 % occupancy, 37.8 % at 95–100 % occupancy, and 35.0 % at ≥100 % occupancy) (p < .001). No significant associations between exposure and 72 h revisits emerged. Multivariable models indicated an odds ratio of inpatient admission of 0.992 (95 % CI: 0.986–0.997) per percentage increase in hospital occupancy.

Conclusions

Study findings indicate that patients with acute abdominal pain are less likely to be admitted to the hospital from the ED at times of access block and that other management strategies are employed instead. No association with 72 h revisits was seen, but future studies need to address more granular outcomes in order to clarify the safety aspects of the effect.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-015-0158-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do we really need additional contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography for differential diagnosis in triage of middle-aged subjects with suspected biliary pain

Enhanced computed tomography (CT) is widely used for evaluating acute biliary pain in the emergency department (ED). However, concern about radiation exposure from CT has also increased. We investigated the usefulness of pre-contrast CT for differential diagnosis in middle-aged subjects with suspected biliary pain.A total of 183 subjects, who visited the ED for suspected biliary pain from January 2011 to December 2012, were included. Retrospectively, pre-contrast phase and multiphase CT findings were reviewed and the detection rate of findings suggesting disease requiring significant treatment by noncontrast CT (NCCT) was compared with cases detected by multiphase CT.Approximately 70% of total subjects had a significant condition, including 1 case of gallbladder cancer and 126 (68.8%) cases requiring intervention (122 biliary stone-related diseases, 3 liver abscesses, and 1 liver hemangioma). The rate of overlooking malignancy without contrast enhancement was calculated to be 0% to 1.5%. Biliary stones and liver space-occupying lesions were found equally on NCCT and multiphase CT. Calculated probable rates of overlooking acute cholecystitis and biliary obstruction were maximally 6.8% and 4.2% respectively. Incidental significant finding unrelated with pain consisted of 1 case of adrenal incidentaloma, which was also observed in NCCT.NCCT might be sufficient to detect life-threatening or significant disease requiring early treatment in young adults with biliary pain.

Predictive factors for clinically actionable computed tomography findings in inflammatory bowel disease patients seen in the emergency department with acute gastrointestinal symptoms

BACKGROUND

The wide use of abdomino-pelvic computed tomography (APCT) in emergency departments (ED) has raised the concern for radiation exposure, costs and potential reactions to contrast agents. The aim of this study was to determine the yield and predictive factors for clinically actionable findings (CAF) in APCTs performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who visit the ED.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study including patients with IBD who visited the ED. Variables considered were demographics, IBD phenotype, clinical symptoms, IBD medication use prior to ED visit, laboratory values, and imaging results. The primary outcome was a composite of CAF, defined as new, intra-abdominal abscess or tumor, bowel obstruction, fistulae, diverticulitis, choledocholithiasis, or appendicitis.

RESULTS

354 patients were included. One or more CAF were reported in 26.6% of the APCTs (32.1% in CD and 12.8% in UC [p<0.01]). Independent predictive variables of CAF in CD were: CRP level ≥5mg/dl (p=0.04), previous history of IBD surgery (p=0.037), Black race (p<0.01) and low body mass index (p<0.01). None of the study variables predicted CAF in UC.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield for CAF with APCT in the ED was high for CD patients but minimal for those with UC and was not improved by the use of contrast. Elevated CRP, low BMI, Black race and previous history of IBD surgery predicted CAF in CD but no variables were predictive of CAF in UC.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH METHODS

The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Free air on plain film: Do we need a computed tomography too?

Context:

Standard teaching is that patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray and clinical signs of abdominal pathology should undergo urgent surgery. It is unknown if abdominal computed tomography (CT) provides additional useful information in this scenario.

Aims:

The aim of this study is to determine whether or not CT scanning after identification of pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray changes clinical management or outcomes.

Settings and Design:

Retrospective study carried out over 4 years at a tertiary care academic medical center. All patients in our acute care surgery database with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray were included. Patients who underwent subsequent CT scanning (CT group) were compared with patients who did not (non-CT group).

Statistical Analysis Used:

The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, t-test and Fisher's exact test were used as appropriate to compare the groups.

Results:

There were 25 patients in the non-CT group and 18 patients in the CT group. There were no differences between the groups at presentation. All patients in the non-CT group underwent surgery, compared with 83% (n = 15) of patients in the CT group (P = 0.066). 16 patients in the non-CT and 11 patients in the CT group presented with peritonitis and all underwent surgery regardless of group. For patients undergoing surgery, there were no differences in outcomes between the groups. After X-ray, patients undergoing CT required 328.0 min to arrive in the operating room compared with 136.0 min in the non-CT group (P = 0.007).

Conclusions:

In patients with pneumoperitoneum on X-ray and peritonitis on physical exam, CT delays surgery without providing any measurable benefit.

Journal club: Acute abdominal pain in elderly patients: effect of radiologist awareness of clinicobiologic information on CT accuracy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether the availability of clinicobiologic findings would affect the diagnostic performance of CT of elderly emergency department patients with nontraumatic acute abdominal pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cases of 333 consecutively registered patients 75 years old or older presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain and who underwent CT were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists blinded or not to the patient's clinicobiologic results. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated according to the level of correctly classified cases in both the entire cohort and a surgical subgroup and was compared between readings performed with and without knowledge of the clinicobiologic findings. Agreement between each reading and the reference diagnosis and interobserver agreement were assessed with kappa statistics.

RESULTS

In both the entire cohort (87.4% vs 85.3%, p = 0.07) and the surgical group (94% vs 91%, p = 0.15), there was no significant difference in CT accuracy between diagnoses made when the radiologist was aware and those made when the radiologist was not aware of the clinicobiologic findings. Agreement between the CT diagnosis and the final diagnosis was excellent whether or not the radiologist was aware of the clinicobiologic findings.

CONCLUSION

In the care of elderly patients, CT is accurate for diagnosing the cause of acute abdominal pain, particularly when it is of surgical origin, regardless of the availability of clinical and biologic findings. Thus CT interpretation should not be delayed until complete clinicobiologic data are available, and the images should be quickly transmitted to the emergency physician so that appropriate therapy can be begun.

Computed tomography in acute abdominal pain: an overused investigation?

BACKGROUND

The use of computed tomography (CT) for the evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute abdominal pain has increased. We set out to investigate its effectiveness.

METHODS

A prospective study conducted at a tertiary referral centre between August and September 2012, utilizing a questionnaire completed by the ordering doctors. Patients with acute abdominal pain who underwent an abdominal CT scan were included in the study, excluding those with a history of recent abdominal trauma or abdominal, pelvic, groin or scrotal surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 260 patients undergoing an abdominal CT scan for the investigation of acute abdominal pain, 60 had questionnaires completed. Fifty-seven per cent of abdominal CT scans were ordered by an ED registrar or consultant. Sixty-five per cent of patients were not discussed with the surgical team prior to ED staff ordering the CT scan. 'To confirm clinical suspicion' and 'to rule out sinister aetiology' were the most important reasons for ordering an abdominal CT. In 54% of cases, there was a change in primary diagnosis post CT scan and in 50% of patients, a change in disposition. Diagnostic confidence in the primary diagnosis did not change significantly post-CT scan. There was no significant difference between which group ordered a CT scan and the probability that the scan showed nil acute pathology.

DISCUSSION

Abdominal CT scans frequently changed the clinical diagnosis and patient disposition. Twenty-three per cent of patients had no identifiable cause on CT scan for their acute abdominal pain.

Use of pelvic computed tomography and sonography in women of reproductive age in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to review use of pelvic computed tomography (CT) and sonography in the emergency department for women of reproductive age and to identify cases in which sonography might have been adequate.

METHODS

Computed tomographic and sonographic examinations of the pelvis performed on women up to 55 years of age in our emergency department during a 6-month period were reviewed. Repeated CT and CT with indications for which sonography would not be the first-line imaging modality (eg, diverticulitis and trauma) were excluded. For the sonographic-only assessment, repeated sonography and sonography with indications for which CT would not be the first-line imaging modality (eg, vaginal bleeding) were excluded. Patient referral indications, imaging diagnoses, and discharge diagnoses were compared for the groups with CT only, CT first, sonography first, and sonography only.

RESULTS

Of 509 women who underwent CT, 407 (80%) underwent CT only; 54 (11%) underwent CT first; and 48 (9%) underwent pelvic sonography first. The percentages with negative CT findings were 42%,17%, and 50%, respectively. Overall, 63 (CT only), 38 (CT first), and 12 (sonography first) patients had CT diagnoses of pelvic conditions only (113 of 509 women [22%]). Of the patients with CT and discharge diagnoses of pelvic conditions, 36 of 44 (82%) had CT only or CT first; 58 of 110 (53%) of cases with sonography only showed acute pelvic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-two percent of pelvic CT examinations performed in women of reproductive age in our emergency department showed only pelvic conditions, suggesting that sonography would have been a reasonable primary imaging test for these patients.

Utility of repeated abdominal CT scans after prior negative CT scans in patients presenting to ER with nontraumatic abdominal pain

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze diagnostic yield of repeat computed tomography (CT) after negative initial CT versus yield of initial CT in patients presenting repeatedly to emergency room (ER) for nontraumatic abdominal pain. Medical costs and radiation exposure from repeat CT could be reduced if repeat CT after negative initial CT has a low diagnostic yield.

METHODS

Patients included consecutive adults presenting to William Beaumont Hospital, from 2007 to 2010, undergoing abdominal CT for nontraumatic abdominal pain retrospectively identified by medical diagnostic and CT procedural codes. Exclusion criteria were prior abdominal trauma, recent abdominal surgery, and known chronic gastrointestinal disease. The CT was labeled "positive" if findings explained patient's abdominal pain or was clinically significant. Positivity rate was compared for repeat versus initial CT.

RESULTS

Among 200 consecutive patients undergoing (659) multiple CTs (mean age = 45.7 years, 74 % female), positivity rate for initial CT (22.5 %) was significantly higher than positivity rates for CT#2 (8.4 %, p = 0.002), for CT#3 (4.9 %, p = 0.005), and for CT ≥ #4 (5.9 %, p = 0.006). Generally, CT positivity rate declined with increasing number of prior negative CTs. CT positivity rate was significantly higher in 100 patients undergoing single CT versus 155 patients undergoing repeat CTs (46.5 vs. 6.5 %, p = 0.0001). Positive repeat CT findings included intestinal mural thickening/mass (7), colitis (5), appendicitis (4), and other (14). Among 15 analyzed clinical parameters, two significantly predicted repeat CT positivity, namely, leukocytosis (p = 0.03) and APACHE-II-score >5 (p = 0.01). Repeat CTs constituted 47 % of all CTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat abdominal CT after initially negative CT(s) performed for nontraumatic abdominal pain has a low diagnostic yield. Leukocytosis and APACHE-II score might help predict CT scan positivity. Data suggest restricted abdominal CT utilization in ER patients with multiple prior negative CTs. Findings warrant confirmation in prospective studies.

Laboratory diagnosis of acute pancreatitis: in search of the Holy Grail

Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory condition of the pancreas, which might extend to local and distant extrapancreatic tissues. The global incidence varies between 17.5 and 73.4 cases per 100,000 and the pathogenesis recognizes alcohol exposure and biliary tract disease as the leading causes, ahead of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, drugs and abdominal trauma. The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is substantially based on a combination of clinical signs and symptoms, imaging techniques and laboratory investigations. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography is the reference standard for the diagnosis, as well as for establishing disease severity. The assessment of pancreatic enzymes, early released from necrotic tissue, is the cornerstone of laboratory diagnosis in this clinical setting. Although there is no single test that shows optimal diagnostic accuracy, most current guidelines and recommendations indicate that lipase should be preferred over total and pancreatic amylase. Although a definitive diagnostic threshold cannot be identified, cut-offs comprised between ≥ 2 and ≥ 4 times the upper limit of the reference interval are preferable. The combination of amylase and lipase has been discouraged as although it marginally improves the diagnostic efficiency of either marker alone, it increases the cost of investigation. Some interesting biomarkers have been also suggested (e.g., serum and urinary trypsinogen-1, -2 and -3, phospholipase A2, pancreatic elastase, procalcitonin, trypsinogen activated protein, activation peptide of carboxypeptidase B, trypsin-2-alpha1 antitrypsin complex and circulating DNA), but none of them has found widespread application for a variety of reasons, including the inferior diagnostic accuracy when compared with the traditional enzymes, the use of cumbersome techniques, or their recent discovery. The promising results of recent proteomics studies showed that this innovative technique might allow the identification of changes characterizing pancreatic tissue injury, thus highlighting new potential biomarkers of acute pancreatitis.

The use of pre-operative computed tomography in the assessment of the acute abdomen

INTRODUCTION

While there are a lot of data on the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing specific causes of an acute abdomen, there is very little information on the accuracy of CT in the acute general surgical admissions workload. We look at the diagnostic accuracy of CT in patients presenting with an acute abdomen who ultimately required a laparotomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy between 2008 and 2010 at Eastbourne District General Hospital with pre-operative CT on the same admission were included in the study. The CT report was compared with the laparotomy and histology findings and, where a discrepancy existed, the original imaging was reviewed by a senior consultant blinded to the original report and laparotomy findings.

RESULTS

A total of 196 emergency laparotomies were performed over the 2-year period, with 112 patients undergoing preoperative CT. Fifteen patients were excluded from the study due to missing notes. In the remaining 97 patients, 80 CT reports correlated with the final operative diagnosis, giving a diagnostic accuracy of 82%. Of these, the on-call registrar was the initial reporter in 37 scans, with a diagnostic accuracy of 78%. On review of the CT by a second consultant, this increased to 90 correlations, yielding an accuracy of 93%. Delay between CT and the operation did not significantly alter diagnostic accuracy, nor was there any statistically significant reduction in accuracy in reports issued by on-call registrars.

CONCLUSIONS

On first reporting, CT misses 18% of diagnoses that ultimately require operative intervention. Reducing the threshold for obtaining a second consultant radiologist review significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy to 93%.

Abdominopelvic CT increases diagnostic certainty and guides management decisions: a prospective investigation of 584 patients in a large academic medical center

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to prospectively determine how CT affects physicians' diagnostic certainty and management decisions in the setting of patients with nontraumatic abdominal complaints presenting to the emergency department.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We included 584 patients presenting with nontraumatic abdominal complaints to the emergency department from November 2006 through February 2008. Emergency department clinicians were prospectively surveyed both before abdominal CT (pre-CT) and after abdominal CT (post-CT) to determine the leading diagnosis, the diagnostic certainty, and the management decisions. Changes were assessed by Fisher's exact test and the log likelihood ratio.

RESULTS

The most common diagnoses were renal colic (119/584, 20.4%) and intestinal obstruction (80/584, 13.7%). CT altered the leading diagnosis in 49% of the patients (284/584, p < 0.00001) and increased mean physician diagnostic certainty from 70.5% (pre-CT) to 92.2% (post-CT) (p < 0.001; log likelihood ratio, 2.48). The management plan was changed by CT in 42% (244/583) (p < 0.0001). Physicians planned to admit 75.3% of the patients (440/584) to the hospital before CT; that plan was changed to hospital discharge with follow-up in 24.1% of patients (106/440) after CT. Surgery was planned for 79 patients before CT, whereas hospital discharge was planned for 25.3% of these patients (20/79) after CT.

CONCLUSION

In the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with nontraumatic abdominal complaints, CT changes the leading diagnosis, increases diagnostic certainty, and changes potential patient management decisions.

Patient factors influencing the effect of surgeon-performed ultrasound on the acute abdomen

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of surgeon-performed ultrasound on acute abdomen in specific patient subgroups regarding the diagnostic accuracy and further management.

Methods

Eight hundred patients attending the emergency department at Stockholm South General Hospital, Sweden, for abdominal pain, were randomized to either receive or not receive surgeon-performed ultrasound as a complement to routine management. Patients were divided into subgroups based on patient characteristics, symptoms or first preliminary diagnosis set at the emergency department before randomization. Outcomes measured were diagnostic accuracy, admission rate and requests for further examinations. Timing of surgery was evaluated for patients with peritonitis.

Results

Increased diagnostic accuracy was seen in patients with body mass index > 25, elevated C-reactive protein, peritonitis, age 30–59 years and/or upper abdominal pain. Decreased need for further examinations and/or fewer admissions were seen in all groups except in patients with a preliminary diagnosis of appendicitis. Among patients with non-specific abdominal pain, admission frequency was decreased with 14% when ultrasound was used (P = 0.007). Among patients with peritonitis, requiring surgery, 61% in the ultrasound group were admitted for surgery directly from the emergency department compared to 19% in the control group.

Conclusion

In different ways, surgeon-performed ultrasound is helpful for the majority of patients admitted to the emergency department for abdominal pain. Taking into account other shown benefits and the lack of adverse effects, we find the method worth consideration for routine implementation.

Low-dose computed tomography versus plain abdominal radiography in the investigation of an acute abdomen

BACKGROUND

To compare low-dose abdominal computed tomography (LDCT) with plain abdominal radiography (AR) in the primary investigation of acute abdominal pain to determine if there is a difference in diagnostic yield, the number of additional investigations required and hospital length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained. Patients presenting to the emergency department with an acute abdomen and who would normally be investigated with AR were randomized to either AR or LDCT. The estimated radiation dose of the LDCT protocol was 2-3 mSv compared to 1.1 mSv for AR. Pearson's chi-square and the independent samples t-test were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were eligible, and after exclusions and omitting those with incomplete data, 55 patients remained for analysis in the AR arm and 53 in the LDCT arm. A diagnosis could be obtained in 12 (21.8%) patients investigated with AR compared to 34 (64.2%) for LDCT (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight (50.9%) patients in the AR group required further imaging during their admission compared to 14 (26.4%) in the LDCT group (P= 0.009). There was no difference in the median hospital LOS (3.84 days for AR versus 4.24 days for LDCT, P= 0.83).

CONCLUSION

LDCT demonstrates a superior diagnostic yield over AR and reduces the number of subsequent imaging tests for a minimal cost in radiation exposure. However, there is no difference in the overall hospital LOS between the two imaging strategies.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

Acute lower abdominal pain is common and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal woman as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with the symptoms of appendicitis and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The  Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINHAL were searched (to April 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, nonspecific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two authors and the risk of bias assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (7 RCTs, 561 participants; OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) 18%) but there was no evidence of reduced rate for any adverse event (8 RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. There was a significant difference favouring laparoscopy in the rate of specific diagnoses (4 RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) 79%) but there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of laparoscopy in women with nonspecific abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis include a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared to open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. There was no evidence of an increase in adverse events with any of the strategies.

The role of plain radiographs in patients with acute abdominal pain at the ED

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of plain radiographs on top of clinical assessment in unselected patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

In a multicenter prospective trial, patients with abdominal pain more than 2 hours and less than 5 days presented at the ED were evaluated clinically, and a diagnosis was made by the treating physician. Subsequently, all patients underwent supine abdominal and upright chest radiographs, after which the diagnosis was reassessed by the treating physician. A final (reference) diagnosis was assigned by an expert panel. The number of changes in the primary diagnosis, as well as the accuracy of these changes, was calculated. Changes in the level of confidence were evaluated for unchanged diagnoses.

RESULTS

Between March 2005 and November 2006, 1021 patients, 55% female, mean age 47 years (range, 19-94 years), were included. In 117 of 1021 patients, the diagnosis changed after plain radiographs, and this change was correct in 39 patients (22% of changed diagnoses and 4% of total study population). Overall, the clinical diagnosis was correct in 502 (49%) patients. The diagnosis after evaluation of the radiographs was correct in 514 (50%) patients, a nonsignificant difference (P = .14). In 65% of patients with unchanged diagnosis before and after plain radiography, the level of confidence of that diagnosis did not change either.

CONCLUSION

The added value of plain radiographs is too limited to advocate their routine use in the diagnostic workup of patients with acute abdominal pain, because few diagnoses change and the level of confidence were mostly not affected.

Unexpected changes in clinical diagnosis: early abdomino-pelvic computed tomography compared with clinical evaluation

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the value of early computed tomography (CT) on identifying clinically "unexpected" diagnosis in patients presenting with "non specific" acute abdominal pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients presenting to on-call surgeons with acute abdominal pain were eligible study participants. Patients were randomised to CT within one hour of admission or supine abdominal and erect chest radiography. Ninety-nine patients randomized to CT arm were reviewed for the purpose of this study. The number and severity of unexpected and/or incidental diagnoses detected on the CT were assessed.

RESULTS

In 20 of the 99 patients CT revealed primary or secondary diagnoses, which were unexpected following the initial clinical examination and led to completely different therapeutic options. In 15 of those 20 patients CT revealed clinically unexpected conditions, whereas in two patients severe complications of the clinically suspected diagnosis were detected on CT. Five patients had significant incidental findings in addition to their primary diagnosis on CT. In two of these patient CT also revealed clinically unexpected diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Early CT has the advantage of detecting unexpected clinically significant primary and secondary diagnoses in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain and best guides the surgeon to the appropriate patient management.

Randomized clinical trial of bedside ultrasound among patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department: impact on patient satisfaction and health care consumption

BACKGROUND

Previous research shows that surgeon-performed ultrasound for patients presenting with abdominal pain in the emergency department leads both to higher diagnostic accuracy and to other benefits. We have evaluated the level of patient satisfaction, health condition and further health care consumption after discharge from the emergency department.

METHODS

A total of 800 patients who attended the emergency department for abdominal pain were randomized to surgeon-performed ultrasound or not as a complement to standard examination. All patients were interviewed by telephone six weeks after the visit to the emergency department using a structured questionnaire including information about health condition, satisfaction and medical examinations. A regional health register was used to check health care consumption over two years and mortality was checked for in the personal data register.

RESULTS

We found a higher self-rated patient satisfaction in the ultrasound group when leaving the emergency department. After six weeks the figures were equal. There were fewer patients in the ultrasound group with completed or planned complementary examinations after six weeks (31.1%) compared with the control group (41.4%), p=0.004. There was no difference found in the two-year health care consumption or mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with acute abdominal pain, bedside ultrasound examination is related to higher satisfaction and decreased short-term health care consumption. No major effects were revealed when evaluating effects on a long-term basis, including mortality. The previously proven benefit together with the lack of adverse effects from the method makes ultrasound well worth considering for implementation in emergency departments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00550511.

Imaging patients with acute abdominal pain

Acute abdominal pain may be caused by a myriad of diagnoses, including acute appendicitis, diverticulitis, and cholecystitis. Imaging plays an important role in the treatment management of patients because clinical evaluation results can be inaccurate. Performing computed tomography (CT) is most important because it facilitates an accurate and reproducible diagnosis in urgent conditions. Also, CT findings have been demonstrated to have a marked effect on the management of acute abdominal pain. The cost-effectiveness of CT in the setting of acute appendicitis was studied, and CT proved to be cost-effective. CT can therefore be considered the primary technique for the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain, except in patients clinically suspected of having acute cholecystitis. In these patients, ultrasonography (US) is the primary imaging technique of choice. When costs and ionizing radiation exposure are primary concerns, a possible strategy is to perform US as the initial technique in all patients with acute abdominal pain, with CT performed in all cases of nondiagnostic US. The use of conventional radiography has been surpassed; this examination has only a possible role in the setting of bowel obstruction. However, CT is more accurate and more informative in this setting as well. In cases of bowel perforation, CT is the most sensitive technique for depicting free intraperitoneal air and is valuable for determining the cause of the perforation. Imaging is less useful in cases of bowel ischemia, although some CT signs are highly specific. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a promising alternative to CT in the evaluation of acute abdominal pain and does not involve the use of ionizing radiation exposure. However, data on the use of MR imaging for this indication are still sparse.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/253/1/31/suppl/DC1.

Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study

OBJECTIVE

To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain.

DESIGN

Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection.

SETTING

Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock.

INTERVENTION

All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain.

RESULTS

661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.