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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Lower Quadrant Pain--Suspected Appendicitis

The most common cause of acute right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain requiring surgery is acute appendicitis (AA). This narrative's focus is on imaging procedures in the diagnosis of AA, with consideration of other diseases causing RLQ pain. In general, Computed Tomography (CT) is the most accurate imaging study for evaluating suspected AA and alternative etiologies of RLQ pain. Data favor intravenous contrast use for CT, but the need for enteric contrast when intravenous contrast is used is not strongly favored. Radiation exposure concerns from CT have led to increased investigation in minimizing CT radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic accuracy and in using algorithms with ultrasound as a first imaging examination followed by CT in inconclusive cases. In children, ultrasound is the preferred initial examination, as it is nearly as accurate as CT for the diagnosis of AA in this population and without ionizing radiation exposure. In pregnant women, ultrasound is preferred initially with MRI as a second imaging examination in inconclusive cases, which is the majority.The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Pediatric CT dose reduction for suspected appendicitis: a practice quality improvement project using artificial Gaussian noise--part 1, computer simulations

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a departmental practice quality improvement project to systematically reduce CT doses for the evaluation of suspected pediatric appendicitis by introducing computer-generated gaussian noise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred MDCT abdominopelvic examinations of patients younger than 20 years performed with girth-based scanning parameters for suspected appendicitis were reviewed. Two judges selected 45 examinations in which the diagnosis of appendicitis was excluded (14, appendix not visualized; 31, normal appendix visualized). Gaussian noise was introduced into axial image series, creating five additional series acquired at 25-76% of the original dose. Two readers reviewed 270 image series for appendix visualization (4-point Likert scale and arrow localization). Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) were calculated by use of patient girth. Confidence ratings and localization accuracy were analyzed with mixed models and nonparametric bootstrap analysis at a 0.05 significance level.

RESULTS

The mean baseline SSDE for the 45 patients was 16 mGy (95% CI, 12-20 mGy), and the corresponding CTDIvol was 10 mGy (95% CI, 4-16 mGy). Changes in correct appendix localization frequencies were minor. There was no substantial trend with decreasing simulated dose level (p = 0.46). Confidence ratings decreased with increasing dose reduction (p = 0.007). The average decreases were -0.27 for the 25% simulated dose (p = 0.01), -0.17 for 33% (p = 0.03), and -0.03 for 43% (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

Pediatric abdominal MDCT can be performed with 43% of the original dose (SSDE, 7 mGy; CTDIvol, 4.3 mGy) without substantially affecting visualization of a normal appendix.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® right lower quadrant pain--suspected appendicitis

The diagnostic imaging of patients presenting with right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis may be organized according to age and gender and to the presence or absence of "classic" signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis. Among adult patients presenting with clinical signs of acute appendicitis, the sensitivity and specificity of CT are greater than those of ultrasound, with improved performance when CT is performed with intravenous contrast. The use of rectal contrast has been associated with decreased time in the emergency department. Computed tomography has also been shown to reduce cost and negative appendectomy rates. Both CT and ultrasound are also effective in the identification of causes of right lower quadrant pain unrelated to appendicitis. Among pediatric patients, the sensitivity and specificity of graded-compression ultrasound can approach those of CT, without the use of ionizing radiation. Performing MRI after inconclusive ultrasound in pregnant patients has been associated with sensitivity and specificity of 80% to 86% and 97% to 99%, respectively. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.