Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 11, pp 2760–2768 | Cite as

Utility of CT oral contrast administration in the emergency department of a quaternary oncology hospital: diagnostic implications, turnaround times, and assessment of ED physician ordering

  • Corey T. JensenEmail author
  • Katherine J. Blair
  • Ott Le
  • Jia Sun
  • Wei Wei
  • Brinda Rao Korivi
  • Ajaykumar C. Morani
  • Nicolaus A. Wagner-Bartak
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare studies with and without oral contrast on performance of multidetector computed tomography (CT) and the order to CT examination turnaround time in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). To the best of our knowledge, oral contrast utility has not previously been specifically assessed in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

Materials & methods

Retrospective review of CT abdomen examinations performed in oncology patients presenting to the emergency department during one month. CT examinations performed with and without oral contrast were rated by two consensus readers for degree of confidence and diagnostic ability. Correlations were assessed for primary cancer type, age, sex, chief complaint/examination indication, body mass index, intravenous contrast status, repeat CT examination within 4 weeks, and disposition. Turnaround times from order to the start of the CT examination were calculated.

Results

The studied group consisted of 267 patients (127 men and 140 women) with a mean age of 56 years and a mean body mass index of 27.8 kg/m2. One hundred sixty CT examinations were performed without oral contrast, and 107 CT examinations were performed with oral contrast. There was no significant difference between cases with oral contrast and cases without oral contrast in the number of cases rated as “improved confidence” (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–1.31, P = 0.17), “improved diagnosis” (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.20–1.64, P = 0.3), “impaired confidence” (OR 3.92, 95% CI 0.46–33.06, P = 0.21), or “impaired diagnosis” (OR 2.63, 95% CI 0.29–23.89, P = 0.39). The turnaround time in the group receiving oral contrast (mean, 141 min; standard deviation, 49.8 min) was significantly longer than that in the group not receiving oral contrast (mean, 109.2 min; standard deviation, 64.8 min) with a mean difference of 31.8 min (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

On the basis of our findings and prior studies, targeted rather than default use of oral contrast shows acceptable diagnostic ability in the emergency setting for oncology patients. Benefit from oral contrast use is suggested in scenarios such as suspected fistula/bowel leak/abscess, hypoattenuating peritoneal disease, prior bowel surgery such as gastric bypass, and the absence of intravenous contrast administration. Improvement through the use of targeted oral contrast administration also supports the emergency department need for prompt diagnosis and disposition.

Keywords

Oral contrast Emergency Abdominal Turnaround time Bowel 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was supported by institutional CCSG (cancer center support Grant) from the NIH/National Cancer Institute under award number P30CA016672.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant and the need for informed consent was waived.

References

  1. 1.
    Huynh LN, Coughlin BF, Wolfe J, et al. (2004) Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast vs. no contrast. Emerg Radiol 10(6):310–313. doi: 10.1007/s10140-004-0348-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang DC, Parry CR, Feldman M, et al. (2015) Acute abdomen in the emergency Department: is CT a time-limiting factor? AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(6):1222–1229. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamlin DJ, Burgener FA (1981) Positive and negative contrast agents in CT evaluation of the abdomen and pelvis. J Comput Tomogr 5(2):82–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kammerer S, Höink AJ, Wessling J, et al. (2014) Abdominal and pelvic CT: is positive enteric contrast still necessary? Results of a retrospective observational study. Eur Radiol 25(3):669–678. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3446-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ham H, McInnes MD, Woo M, Lemonde S (2012) Negative predictive value of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen for patients presenting to the emergency department with undifferentiated upper abdominal pain. Emerg Radiol 19(1):19–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harieaswar S, Rajesh A, Griffin Y, Tyagi R, Morgan B (2009) Routine use of positive oral contrast material is not required for oncology patients undergoing follow-up multidetector CT. Radiology 250(1):246–253. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2493080353 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richards JR, Derlet RW (1998) Computed tomography for blunt abdominal trauma in the ED: a prospective study. Am J Emerg Med 16(4):338–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abramson S, Walders N, Applegate KE, Gilkeson RC, Robbin MR (2000) Impact in the emergency department of unenhanced CT on diagnostic confidence and therapeutic efficacy in patients with suspected renal colic: a prospective survey. 2000 ARRS President’s Award. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(6):1689–1695. doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.6.1751689 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clancy TV, Ragozzino MW, Ramshaw D, et al. (1993) Oral contrast is not necessary in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma by computed tomography. Am J Surg 166(6):680–684 (discussion 684–685 )CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsang BD, Panacek EA, Brant WE, Wisner DH (1997) Effect of oral contrast administration for abdominal computed tomography in the evaluation of acute blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 30(1):7–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stafford RE, McGonigal MD, Weigelt JA, Johnson TJ (1999) Oral contrast solution and computed tomography for blunt abdominal trauma: a randomized study. Arch Surg 134(6):622–626 (discussion 626–627)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butela ST, Federle MP, Chang PJ, et al. (2001) Performance of CT in detection of bowel injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(1):129–135. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.1.1760129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stuhlfaut JW, Soto JA, Lucey BC, et al. (2004) Blunt abdominal trauma: performance of CT without oral contrast material. Radiology 233(3):689–694. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031972 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR (2005) A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 190(3):474–478. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.03.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKersie AB, Lane MJ, Gerhardt RT, et al. (2005) Nontraumatic acute abdominal pain: unenhanced helical CT compared with three-view acute abdominal series. Radiology 237(1):114–122. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2371040066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, et al. (2006) CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics 26(3):641–657 (discussion 657–662). doi: 10.1148/rg.263055162 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiesner W, Hauser A, Steinbrich W (2004) Accuracy of multidetector row computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute bowel ischemia in a non-selected study population. Eur Radiol 14(12):2347–2356. doi: 10.1007/s00330-004-2462-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM, et al. (2006) Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT. Radiology 238(1):87–95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2381041985 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horton KM, Fishman EK (2004) Multidetector-row computed tomography and 3-dimensional computed tomography imaging of small bowel neoplasms: current concept in diagnosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28(1):106–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harrison ML, Lizotte PE, Holmes TM, et al. (2013) Does high body mass index obviate the need for oral contrast in emergency department patients? West J Emerg Med 14(6):595–597. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2013.5.12950 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laituri CA, Fraser JD, Aguayo P, et al. (2011) The lack of efficacy for oral contrast in the diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography. J Surg Res 170(1):100–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kauv P, Benadjaoud S, Curis E, et al. (2015) Anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery: diagnostic accuracy of CT. Eur Radiol 25(12):3543–3551. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3795-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang ZJ, Chen KS, Gould R, et al. (2011) Positive enteric contrast material for abdominal and pelvic CT with automatic exposure control: what is the effect on patient radiation exposure? Eur J Radiol 79(2):e58–e62. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.03.059 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corey T. Jensen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katherine J. Blair
    • 1
  • Ott Le
    • 1
  • Jia Sun
    • 2
  • Wei Wei
    • 2
  • Brinda Rao Korivi
    • 1
  • Ajaykumar C. Morani
    • 1
  • Nicolaus A. Wagner-Bartak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations