Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 601–608 | Cite as

Effect of intravenous contrast for CT abdomen and pelvis on detection of urgent and non-urgent pathology: can repeat CT within 72 hours be avoided?

  • Christine LamoureuxEmail author
  • Scott Weber
  • Tarek Hanna
  • Andrew J. Grabiel
  • Reese H. Clark
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if administering IV contrast for CT abdomen and pelvis improves detection of urgent and clinically important non-urgent pathology in patients with urgent clinical symptoms compared to patients not receiving IV contrast, and in turn to determine whether repeat CT exams on the same patient within 72 h were of low diagnostic benefit if the first CT was performed with IV contrast.

Methods

We evaluated 400 consecutive patients who had CT abdomen and pelvis (CT AP) examinations repeated within 72 h. For each patient, demographic data, reason for examination, examination time stamps, and examination technique were documented. CT AP radiology reports were reviewed and both urgent and non-urgent pathology was extracted.

Results

Of 400 patients, 63% had their initial CT AP without contrast. Administration of IV contrast for the first CT AP was associated with increased detection of urgent findings compared with non-contrast CT (p = 0.004) and a contrast-enhanced CT AP following an initial non-contrast CT AP examination better characterized both urgent (p = 0.002) and non-urgent findings (p < 0.001). Adherence to ACR appropriateness criteria for IV contrast administration was associated with increased detection of urgent pathology on the first CT (p = 0.02), and the second CT was more likely to be performed with IV contrast if recommended by the radiologist reading the first CT (p = 0.0006).

Conclusion

In the absence of contraindications, encouraging urgent care physicians to preferentially order IV contrast-enhanced CT AP examinations in adherence with ACR appropriateness criteria may increase detection of urgent pathology and avoid short-term repeat CT AP.

Keywords

IV contrast CT abdomen and pelvis Radiology Repeat CT 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Longmaid HE 3rd, Reynolds KF, Wagner M, Raptopoulos V (2000) Impact of abdominal CT on the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1391–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13(2):418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salem TA, Molloy RG, O’Dwyer PJ (2005) Prospective study on the role of CT scan in patients with an acute abdomen. Color Dis 7:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taourel P, Baron MP, Pradel J, Fabre JM, Seneterre E, Bruel JM (1992 Fall) Acute abdomen of unknown origin: impact of CT in diagnosis and management. Gastrointest Radiol 17(4):287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siewert B, Raptopoulos V, Mueller MF, Rosen MP, Steer M (1997) Impact of CT on diagnosis and management of acute abdomen in patients initially treated without surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168(1):173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abujudeh HH, Kaewlai R, McMahon PM, Binder W, Novelline RA, Gazelle GS, Thrall JH (2011) Abdominopelvic CT increases diagnostic certainty and guides management decisions: a prospective investigation of 584 patients in a large academic medical center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lameris W, van Randen A, van Es HW, van Heesewijk JPM, van Ramshorst B, Bouma WH, ten Hove W, van Leeuwen MS, van Keulen EM, Dijkgraaf MGW, Bossuyt PMM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J, on behalf of the OPTIMA study group (2009) Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ. 338:b2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ivan Ip IK, Mortele KJ, Prevedello LM, Khorasani R (2012) Repeat abdominal imaging examinations in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Med 125(2):155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    You JJ, Yun L, Tu JV (2008) Impact of picture archiving communication systems on rates of duplicate imaging: a before-after study. BMC Health Serv Res 8:234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hahn B, Akita A, Rankin L, Scibilia M, Trovato G, Foley M, Hirschorn D (2016) Incidence and pathology of repeat CT abdomen and pelvis in an adult emergency department population. Clin Imaging 40(5):861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nojkov B, Duffy MC, Cappell MS (2013) Utility of repeated abdominal CT scans after prior negative CT scans in patients presenting to the ER with nontraumatic abdominal pain. Dig Dis Sci 58(4):1074–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jha AK, Chan DC, Ridgway AB, Franz C, Bates DW (2009) Improving safety and eliminating redundant tests: cutting costs in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 28(5):1475–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ACR appropriateness criteria. American College of Radiology web site. http://www.acr.org
  14. 14.
    IMV (2014) CT benchmark report. Des Plaines, ill: IMV medical information division, p 2014Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broder JS, Hamedani AG, Liu SW, Emerman CL (2013) Emergency department contrast practices for abdominal/pelvic computed tomography-a national survey and comparison with the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. J Emerg Med 44(2):423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoker J, van Randen A, Lameris W, Boermeester MA (2009) Imaging patients with acute abdominal pain. Radiology. 253:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kitagawa M, Kotani, Tatsuya K, Miyamoto Y, Kuriu Y, Tsurudome H, Nishi H, Yabe M, Otsuji E (2009) Noncontrast and contrast enhanced computed tomography for diagnosing acute appendicitis: a retrospective study for the usefulness. J Radiol Case Rep 3(6):26–33PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jang HJ, Lim HK, Lee SJ, Lee WJ, Kim EY, Kim SH (2000) Acute diverticulitis of the cecum and ascending colon: the value of thin-section helical CT findings in excluding colonic carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(5):1397–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banks PA, Freeman ML, the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2006) Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 101(10):2379–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basak S, Nazarian LN, Wechsler RJ, Parker L, Williams BD, Lev-Toaff AS, Kurtz AB (2002) Is unenhanced CT sufficient for evaluation of acute abdominal pain? Clin Imaging 26(6):405–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Whitesell RT, Steenburg SD (2014) Imaging findings of acute intravascular thrombus on non-enhanced computed tomography. Emerg Radiol 21:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davenport MS, Cohan RH, Ellis JH (2015) Contrast media controversies in 2015: imaging patients with renal impairment or risk of contrast reaction. Am J Roentgenol 204(6):1174–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agarwal MD, Levinson RB, Siewert B et al (2015) Limited added utility of performing follow-up contrast-enhanced CT in patients undergoing initial non-enhanced CT for evaluation of flank pain in the emergency department. Emerg Radiol 22:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mabotuwana T, Hombal V, Dalal S, Hall CS, Gunn M (2018) Determining adherence to follow-up imaging recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 15(3PtA):422–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee SI, Krishnaraj A, Chatterji M, Dreyer KJ, Thrall JH, Hahn PF (2012) When does a radiologist recommendation for follow-up result in high-cost imaging? Radiology. 262(2):544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Lamoureux
    • 1
    Email author
  • Scott Weber
    • 1
  • Tarek Hanna
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Grabiel
    • 1
  • Reese H. Clark
    • 3
  1. 1.Virtual Radiologic ProfessionalsEden PrairieUSA
  2. 2.Division of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging SciencesEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, Quality and SafetySunriseUSA

Personalised recommendations