HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Anderson, S. W. Articles by Rhea, J. T. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Anderson, S. W. Articles by Rhea, J. T. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Abdominal 64-MDCT for Suspected Appendicitis: The Use of Oral and IV Contrast Material Versus IV Contrast Material Only

¹ Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, 88 E Newton St., 2nd Fl., Boston, MA 02217.
² Department of Biostatistics, Boston University, Boston, MA.
³ Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of IV contrast-enhanced 64-MDCT with and without the use of oral contrast material in diagnosing appendicitis in patients with abdominal pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We conducted a randomized trial of a convenience sample of adult patients presenting to an urban academic emergency department with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain and clinical suspicion of appendicitis, diverticulitis, or small-bowel obstruction. Patients were enrolled between 8 am and 11 pm when research assistants were present. Consenting subjects were randomized into one of two groups: Group 1 subjects underwent 64-MDCT performed with oral and IV contrast media and group 2 subjects underwent 64-MDCT performed solely with IV contrast material. Three expert radiologists independently reviewed the CT examinations, evaluating for the presence of appendicitis. Each radiologist interpreted 202 examinations, ensuring that each examination was interpreted by two radiologists. Individual reader performance and a combined interpretation performance of the two readers assigned to each case were calculated. In cases of disagreement, the third reader was asked to deliver a tiebreaker interpretation to be used to calculate the combined reader performance. Final outcome was based on operative, clinical, and follow-up data. We compared radiologic diagnoses with clinical outcomes to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of CT in both groups.

RESULTS. Of the 303 patients enrolled, 151 patients (50%) were randomized to group 1 and the remaining 152 (50%) were randomized to group 2. The combined reader performance for the diagnosis of appendicitis in group 1 was a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 76.8–100%) and specificity of 97.1% (95% CI, 92.7–99.2%). The performance in group 2 was a sensitivity of 100% (73.5–100%) and specificity of 97.1% (92.9–99.2%).

CONCLUSION. Patients presenting with nontraumatic abdominal pain imaged using 64-MDCT with isotropic reformations had similar characteristics for the diagnosis of appendicitis when IV contrast material alone was used and when oral and IV contrast media were used.

Keywords: appendicitis • contrast media • CT • diverticulitis • emergency medicine • MDCT

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. K. Paulson and C. A. Coursey CT Protocols for Acute Appendicitis: Time for Change Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2009; 193(5): 1268 - 1271. [Full Text] [PDF]