Neutral vs positive oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis with contrast-enhanced CT: sensitivity, specificity, reader confidence and interpretation time

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.

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.

Diagnosing acute appendicitis using a nonoral contrast CT protocol in patients with a BMI of less than 25

The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy for the diagnosis of appendicitis in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute, nontraumatic abdominal pain and a body mass index (BMI) of less than 25 before and after the implementation of a nonoral contrast computed tomography (CT) protocol with intravenous contrast. The IRB approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study; informed consent was waived. This study included 736 adult patients with a BMI of less than 25 presenting to our ED with acute, nontraumatic abdominal pain over two distinct 6-month time periods. An oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced protocol was utilized in the first cohort (group A), and an intravenous contrast-enhanced protocol without oral contrast was utilized in the second cohort (group B). Three abdominal fellowship-trained readers retrospectively reviewed all CT studies and electronic medical records, including surgical/pathology reports that served as reference standards. Group A consisted of 359 patients; 41 patients had surgically proven appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of the readers for diagnosing appendicitis in group A ranged from 95.2-100 and 98.1-99.5 %, respectively. Group B consisted of 372 patients; 39 had surgically proven appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of the readers in group B ranged from 92.0-100 and 98.6-100 %, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity for CT scans performed in groups A and B. In patients with a BMI of less than 25, an intravenous contrast-enhanced CT protocol without oral contrast demonstrates similar accuracy to an intravenous contrast-enhanced protocol with oral contrast for diagnosing acute appendicitis.

Delaying surgery to perform CT scans for suspected appendicitis decreases the rate of negative appendectomies without increasing the rate of perforation nor postoperative complications

PURPOSE

Negative appendectomies are costly and are embedded with unnecessary risks for the patients. A careful indication for surgery seems mandatory even more so, since conservative therapy emerges as a potential alternative to surgery. The aims of this population-based study were to analyze whether radiological examinations for suspected appendicitis decreased the rate of negative appendectomies without increasing the rate of perforation or worsening postoperative outcomes.

METHOD

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective population-based database. The data collection included preoperative investigations and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Based on 2559 patients, the rate of negative appendectomies decreased significantly with the use of CT scan as compared to clinical evaluation only (9.3 vs 5 %, p = 0.019), whereas ultrasonography alone was not able to decrease this rate (9.3 vs 6.2 %, p = 0.074). Delaying surgery for radiological investigation did not increase the rate of perforation (18.1 vs 19.2 %; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.01; 0.8-1.3; p = 0.899). Postoperative complications (surgical reintervention, postoperative wound infection, postoperative hematoma, postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) were all comparable.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study, CT scan was the only radiological modality that significantly reduced the rate of negative appendectomy. The delay induced by such additional imaging did not increase perforation nor complication rates. Abdominal CT scans for suspected appendicitis should therefore be more frequently used if clinical findings are unconclusive.

Multidetector CT imaging of bariatric surgical complications: a pictorial review

The prevalence of obesity is increasing, along with the number of bariatric surgical procedures performed to treat obesity. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and laparoscopic gastric banding (GB) comprise the vast majority of procedures with SG now the dominant procedure in the USA. Although multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is not always the examination of choice for a particular suspected complication, many of these patients present with non-specific abdominal symptoms and undergo MDCT evaluation as an initial diagnostic test. This pictorial essay will review and discuss the normal post-surgical bariatric appearance on MDCT, and the appearance of common and uncommon complications associated with the common bariatric procedures on MDCT with correlative imaging. SG complications include leak/abscess, hemorrhage, splenic injury, and portomesenteric thrombosis. RYGB complications include leak/abscess, gastrogastric fistula, small bowel obstruction, internal hernia, and intussusception. Although GB is waning in popularity, radiologists continue to see the legacy of these patients and complications include gastric prolapse, band erosion, and port/tubing mechanical failures. Awareness of the characteristic findings of bariatric complications on MDCT is critical, allowing for earlier recognition and prompt intervention.

Improvement of distension and mural visualization of bowel loops using neutral oral contrasts in abdominal computed tomography

AIM: To assess and compare the image quality of 4% sorbitol and diluted iodine 2% (positive oral contrast agent) in abdomino-pelvic multi-detector computed tomography.

METHODS: Two-hundred patients, referred to the Radiology Department of a central educational hospital for multi-detector row abdominal-pelvic computed tomography, were randomly divided into two groups: the first group received 1500 mL of 4% sorbitol solution as a neutral contrast agent, while in the second group 1500 mL of meglumin solution as a positive contrast agent was administered in a one-way randomized prospective study. The results were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Luminal distension and mural thickness and mucosal enhancement were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis of the results was performed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 16 and the Mann-Whitney test at a confidence level of 95%.

RESULTS: Use of neutral oral contrast agent significantly improved visualization of the small bowel wall thickness and mural appearance in comparison with administration of positive contrast agent (P < 0.01). In patients who received sorbitol, the small bowel showed better distention compared with those who received iodine solution as a positive contrast agent (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The results of the study demonstrated that oral administration of sorbitol solution allows better luminal distention and visualization of mural features than iodine solution as a positive contrast agent.

Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether positive oral contrast agents improve accuracy of abdominopelvic CT compared with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent.

METHODS

Literature was searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of abdominopelvic CT with positive oral contrast agents against imaging with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. Meta-analysis reviewed studies correlating CT findings of blunt abdominal injury with positive and without oral contrast agents against surgical, autopsy or clinical outcome allowing derivation of pooled sensitivity and specificity. Systematic review was performed on studies with common design and reference standard.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 15 studies comparing CT with positive and without oral contrast agents. Meta-analysis of five studies from group 1 provided no difference in sensitivity or specificity between CT with positive or without oral contrast agents. Group 2 comprised 17 studies comparing CT with positive and neutral or negative oral contrast agents. Systematic review of 12 studies from group 2 indicated that neutral or negative oral contrasts were as effective as positive oral contrast agents for bowel visualisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in accuracy between CT performed with positive oral contrast agents or with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent.

KEY POINTS

• There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with or without oral contrast agent. • There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with Gastrografin or water. • Omission of oral contrast, utilising neutral or negative oral contrast agent saves time, costs and decreases risk of aspiration.