Skip to main content

CT Scan for Suspected Acute Abdominal Process: Impact of Combinations of IV, Oral, and Rectal Contrast

Abstract

Background

There are limited data available on the ability of computed tomography (CT) to accurately diagnose abdominopelvic pathology in acutely ill inpatients suspected of having an acute abdominal process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal/pelvic CT with varying use of contrast agents in hospitalized patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of all hospital inpatients (3/1/07–5/31/07) who underwent urgent or emergent abdominal/pelvic CT with any combination of contrast, intravenous (IV), oral, rectal, or unenhanced for a suspected acute abdominal process was performed. Data collected included demographics, combination of contrast used, CT diagnosis, time from CT scan to subsequent intervention, intervention type, and actual diagnosis of the acute abdominal process. Accuracy of CT was compared between enhanced and unenhanced imaging using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 661 patients were identified. Use of IV contrast alone was found in 54.2% of CT scans and was correct in 92.5% of cases. IV and oral contrast was used in 22.2% of CT scans and was 94.6% correct. Unenhanced imaging was performed in 16.2% and was correct in 92.5%. Oral contrast alone was used in 7.0% and was 93.5% correct. There was no significant difference in the ability to correctly diagnose a suspected acute abdominal process when enhanced CT imaging was compared to unenhanced (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

CT contrast administration in critically ill hospitalized patients is not necessary to accurately diagnose an acute abdominal process. Eliminating the use of contrast may improve patient comfort, decrease patient risk, and minimize financial cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Stern SH (2007) Nationwide Evaluation of X-Ray Trends (NEXT): tabulation and graphical summary of 2000 survey of computed tomography. (CRCPD publication no. NEXT_2000CT) Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/2000survey.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2008

  3. 3.

    Balthazar EJ, Megibow AJ, Siegel SE et al (1991) Appendicitis: prospective evaluation with high-resolution CT. Radiology 180:21–24

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gore RM, Miller FH, Pereles FS et al (2000) Helical CT in the evaluation of the acute abdomen. Am J Roentgenol 174:901–913

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Strömberg C, Johansson G, Adolfsson A (2007) Acute abdominal pain: diagnostic impact of immediate CT scanning. World J Surg 31:2347–2354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    in’t Hof KH, van Lankeren W, Krestin GP et al (2004) Surgical validation of unenhanced helical computed tomography in acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 91:1641–1645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Basak S, Nazarian LN, Wechsler RJ et al (2002) Is unenhanced CT sufficient for evaluation of acute abdominal pain? Clin Imaging 26:405–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    MacKersie AB, Lane MJ, Gerhardt RT et al (2005) Nontraumatic acute abdominal pain: unenhanced helical CT compared with three-view acute abdominal series. Radiology 237:114–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mun S, Ernst RD, Chen K et al (2006) Rapid CT diagnosis of acute appendicitis with IV contrast material. Emerg Radiol 12:99–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Huyn LN, Coughlin B, Wolfe JM et al (2004) Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast. Emerg Radiol 10:310–313

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lee SY, Coughlin B, Wolfe JM et al (2006) Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult emergency department patients. Emerg Radiol 12:150–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Jacobs JE, Birnbaum BA, Macari M et al (2001) Acute appendicitis: comparison of helical CT diagnosis-focused technique with oral contrast material versus nonfocused technique with oral and intravenous contrast material. Radiology 220:683–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD et al (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Emerg Radiol 213:341–346

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for Alan T. Davis, PhD and Tracy Frieswyk, BA for their guidance and advising throughout this project and their assistance editing this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian C. Hill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hill, B.C., Johnson, S.C., Owens, E.K. et al. CT Scan for Suspected Acute Abdominal Process: Impact of Combinations of IV, Oral, and Rectal Contrast. World J Surg 34, 699–703 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0379-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Compute Tomography
  • Appendicitis
  • Diverticulitis
  • Oral Contrast
  • Unenhanced Compute Tomography