Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This prospective study compares the agreement of nonenhanced helical computed tomography (NECT) with oral contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in Emergency Department (ED) patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.

Materials and methods

One hundred eighteen patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain undergoing CT were enrolled over a 13-month period using convenience sampling. Exclusion criteria included acute trauma, pregnancy, unstable patients, and patients suspected of having urinary calculi. Patients were scanned helically using 5-mm collimation before and approximately 90 min after oral contrast administration. Both exams were prospectively interpreted by different attending radiologists in a blinded fashion using an explicit data sheet specifying the presence or absence of 28 parameters relating to various common diagnoses.

Results

The 118 patients had a mean age of 49 years, a male: female ratio of 7:13, and a median height, weight, and BMI of 166 cm, 80 kg, and 29, respectively. The most common indications for the study included appendicitis (32%) and diverticular disease (12%). Pain maximally localized to the right lower quadrant in 37% and the left lower quadrant in 21%. There were 21 patients that had significant disagreement of interpretations between NECT and CECT resulting in a simple agreement of 79% (95% CI: 70–87%). For specific radiologic parameters, agreement ranged from 77 to 100%. A post hoc agreement analysis was subsequently performed by two radiologists and only five paired scans were identified as discordant between the NECT and CECT. For only one of these patients did both radiologists agree that there was a definite discordant result between the two studies. A final unblinded consensus review demonstrated that much of the disagreement between the interpretations was related to interobserver variation.

Conclusion

There is 79% simple agreement between NECT and CECT in diagnosing various causes of acute abdominal pain in adult ED patients. Post hoc analysis indicates that a significant portion of the discordance was attributable to interobserver variability. This data suggests that NECT should be considered in adult ED patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Jeffrey RB (2002) Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 225:131–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Raman SS, Lu DSK, Kadell BM, Vodopich DJ, Sayre J, Cryer H (2002) Accuracy of nonfocused helical CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a 5 year review. Am J Roentgenol 178:1319–1325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR (2000) Appendicitis at the Millenium. Radiology 215:337–348

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA et al (1995) Acute flank pain: comparison of non contrast enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 194:789–794

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Portis AJ, Sundaram CP (2001) Diagnosis and initial management of kidney stones. Am Fam Physician 63:1329–1338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Akbar SA, Mortele KJ, Baeyens K, Kekelidze M, Silverman SG (2004) Multidetector CT urography: techniques, clinical applications, and pitfalls. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 25:41–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, Emergency Department Summary for 1996–2001. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics

  8. Kamel IR, Goldberg SN, Keogan MT, Rosen MP, Raptopolous V (2000) Right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis: nonfocused appendiceal CT—review of 100 cases. Radiology 217:159–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Malone AJ, Wolf CR, Malmed AS, Melliere BF (1993) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT. AM J Roentgenol 160:763–766

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA et al (1997) Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. Am J Roentgenol 168:405–409

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wise SW, Labuski MR, Kasales CJ et al (2001) Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging. Am J Roentgenol 176:933–941

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lane MJ, Lui DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB, Mindelzun, Katz DS (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 213:341–346

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Guillerman RP, Brody AS, Kraus SJ (2002) Evidence-based guidelines for pediatric imaging: the example of the child with possible appendicitis. Pediatr Ann 31:629–640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huyn LN, Coughlin BF, Wolfe J, Blank F, Lee SY, Smithline HA (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 

  15. Kirkpatrick RH, Wittenberg J, Schaffer, DL, Black EB, Hall DA, Braitman BS, Ferrucci JR JT (1978) Scanning techniques in computed body tomography. Am J Roentgenol 130:1069–1075

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stephens DH, Hattery RR, Sheedy P II (1976) Computed tomographyof the abdomen—early experience with the EMI body scanner. Radiology 119:331–335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kandis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. In: Altman DG (ed) Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell DG, Parker L, Sunshine JH, Levin DC (2002) Body MR imaging and CT volume:variations and trends based on an analysis of medicare and fee for service health insurance databases. Am J Roentgenol 179:27–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Trzeciak S, Rivers EP (2003) Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health. Emerg Med J 20:402–405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schull MJ, Szalai JP, Schwartz B, Redelmeier DA (2001) Emergency department overcrowding following systematic hospital restructuring: trends at twenty hospitals over ten years. Acad Emerg Med 8:1037–1043

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McCabe JB (2001) Emergency department overcrowding: a national crisis. Acad Med 76:672–674

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR (2000) The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Rad 73:1052–1055

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bechtold RE, Chen MY, Ott DJ et al (1997) Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomo 21:681–685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoon LS, Haims AH, Brink JA, Rabinovici R, Forman HP (2002) Evaluation of an emergency radiology quality assurance program at a level I trauma center:abdominal and pelvic CT studies. Radiology 224:42–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Freed KS, Paulson EK, Frederick MG et al (1998) Interobserver variability in the interpretation of unenhanced helical CT for the diagnosis of ureteral stone disease. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22:732–737

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Garg K, Kemp JL, Russ PD, Baron AE (2001) Thromboembolic disease: variability of interobserver agreement in the interpretation of CT venography with pulmonary angiography. Am J Roentgenol 176:1043–1047

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruiz Y, Caballero P, Caniego JL et al (2003) Prospective comparison of helical CT with angiography in pulmonary embolism: global and selective vascular territory analysis. Interobserver agreement. Eur Radiol 13:823–829

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lal NR, Uwada MM, Eldevik P, Desmond JS (2000) Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents. Am J Neuroradiol 21:124–129

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Alfaro D, Levitt MA, English DK, Williams V, Eisenberg R (1995) Accuracy of interpretation of cranial computed tomography scans in an emergency medicine residency program. Ann Emerg Med 25:169–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Fletcher BD, Glicksman AS, Gieser P (1999) Interobserver variability in the detection of cervical–thoracic Hodgkin’s disease by computed tomography. J Clin Oncol 17:2153–2159

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, Springfield, MA, 01109, USA

    Steve Y. Lee, Bret Coughlin, Jeannette M. Wolfe, Joseph Polino, Fidela S. Blank & Howard A. Smithline

  2. Department Emergency Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, Springfield, MA, 01109, USA

    Steve Y. Lee, Bret Coughlin, Jeannette M. Wolfe, Joseph Polino, Fidela S. Blank & Howard A. Smithline

Authors
  1. Steve Y. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bret Coughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeannette M. Wolfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph Polino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fidela S. Blank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Howard A. Smithline
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bret Coughlin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S.Y., Coughlin, B., Wolfe, J.M. et al. 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 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-006-0474-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-006-0474-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation