Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study

Wytze Laméris, Adrienne van Randen, H Wouter van Es, Johannes P M van Heesewijk, Bert van Ramshorst, Wim H Bouma, Wim ten Hove, Maarten S van Leeuwen, Esteban M van Keulen, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Marja A Boermeester, Jaap Stoker, OPTIMA study group, Wytze Laméris, Adrienne van Randen, H Wouter van Es, Johannes P M van Heesewijk, Bert van Ramshorst, Wim H Bouma, Wim ten Hove, Maarten S van Leeuwen, Esteban M van Keulen, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Marja A Boermeester, Jaap Stoker, OPTIMA study group

Abstract

Objective: To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain.

Design: Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection.

Setting: Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

Participants: 1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock.

Intervention: All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent.

Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain.

Results: 661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity.

Conclusion: Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787309/bin/lamw628354.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Flow chart of study protocol. *Completed for all 1021 patients
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787309/bin/lamw628354.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Management of patients after completion of the diagnostic protocol. *Laparoscopy converted to laparotomy in 26 patients
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787309/bin/lamw628354.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Diagnostic performance of all imaging strategies presented in receiver operating characteristics space. Numbers correspond to strategies in the box; strategy 5 is ultrasonography in all patients with computed tomography if ultrasonography is negative or inconclusive. See web appendix for more information

References

    1. Walsh PF, Crawford D, Crossling FT, Sutherland GR, Negrette JJ, Shand J. The value of immediate ultrasound in acute abdominal conditions: a critical appraisal. Clin Radiol 1990;42:47-9.
    1. Allemann F, Cassina P, Rothlin M, Largiader F. Ultrasound scans done by surgeons for patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective study. Eur J Surg 1999;165:966-70.
    1. Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V. Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 2003;13:418-24.
    1. Esses D, Birnbaum A, Bijur P, Shah S, Gleyzer A, Gallagher EJ. Ability of CT to alter decision making in elderly patients with acute abdominal pain. Am J Emerg Med 2004;22:270-2.
    1. Bassler D, Snoey ER, Kim J. Goal-directed abdominal ultrasonography: impact on real-time decision making in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2003;24:375-8.
    1. Sala E, Watson CJ, Beadsmoore C, Groot-Wassink T, Fanshawe TR, Smith JC, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of routine early abdominal computed tomography in patients presenting with non-specific acute abdominal pain. Clin Radiol 2007;62:961-9.
    1. Ng CS, Watson CJ, Palmer CR, See TC, Beharry NA, Housden BA, et al. Evaluation of early abdominopelvic computed tomography in patients with acute abdominal pain of unknown cause: prospective randomised study. BMJ 2002;325:1387.
    1. Broder J, Warshauer DM. Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000-2005. Emerg Radiol 2006;13:25-30.
    1. Mitka M. Costly surge in diagnostic imaging spurs debate. JAMA 2005;293:665-7.
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-84.
    1. Balfe DM, Levine MS, Ralls PW, Bree RL, DiSantis DJ, Glick SN, et al. Evaluation of left lower quadrant pain. American College of Radiology: ACR appropriateness criteria. Radiology 2000;215(suppl):167-71.
    1. Bree RL, Ralls PW, Balfe DM, DiSantis DJ, Glick SN, Levine MS, et al. Evaluation of patients with acute right upper quadrant pain. American College of Radiology: ACR appropriateness criteria. Radiology 2000;215(suppl):153-7.
    1. Ralls PW, Balfe DM, Bree RL, DiSantis DJ, Glick SN, Levine MS, et al. Evaluation of acute right lower quadrant pain. American College of Radiology: ACR appropriateness criteria. Radiology 2000;215(suppl):159-66.
    1. Saini S, Ralls PW, Balfe DM, Bree RL, DiSantis DJ, Glick SN, et al. Suspected abdominal abscess. American College of Radiology: ACR appropriateness criteria. Radiology 2000;215(suppl):173-9.
    1. Lameris W, van Randen A, Dijkgraaf MG, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Optimization of diagnostic imaging use in patients with acute abdominal pain (OPTIMA): design and rationale. BMC Emerg Med 2007;7:9.
    1. Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, de Vries BC, van der Werf SD, Dorr JP, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 1987;317:666-9.
    1. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L, Franco EL. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002;21:2527-46.
    1. Hertzberg BS, Kliewer MA, Bowie JD, Carroll BA, DeLong DH, Gray L, et al. Physician training requirements in sonography: how many cases are needed for competence? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1221-7.
    1. Tack D, Bohy P, Perlot I, De Maertelaer V, Alkeilani O, Sourtzis S, et al. Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005;237:189-96.
    1. Pradel JA, Adell J-F, Taourel P, Djafari M, Monnin-Delhom E, Bruel J. Acute colonic diverticulitis: prospective comparative evaluation with US and CT. Radiology 1997;205:503-12.
    1. Lee CC, Golub R, Singer AJ, Cantu R Jr, Levinson H. Routine versus selective abdominal computed tomography scan in the evaluation of right lower quadrant pain: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14:117-22.
    1. Walker S, Haun W, Clark J, McMillin K, Zeren F, Gilliland T. The value of limited computed tomography with rectal contrast in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 2000;180:450-4.
    1. Raman SS, Osuagwu FC, Kadell B, Cryer H, Sayre J, Lu DS. Effect of CT on false positive diagnosis of appendicitis and perforation. N Engl J Med 2008;358:972-3.
    1. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 1998;338:141-6.
    1. Dhillon S, Halligan S, Goh V, Matravers P, Chambers A, Remedios D. The therapeutic impact of abdominal ultrasound in patients with acute abdominal symptoms. Clin Radiol 2002;57:268-71.
    1. Williams RJ, Windsor AC, Rosin RD, Mann DV, Crofton M. Ultrasound scanning of the acute abdomen by surgeons in training. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994;76:228-33.
    1. Lewis LM, Klippel AP, Bavolek RA, Ross LM, Scherer TM, Banet GA. Quantifying the usefulness of CT in evaluating seniors with abdominal pain. Eur J Radiol 2007;61:290-6.
    1. McGrath FP, Keeling F. The role of early sonography in the management of the acute abdomen. Clin Radiol 1991;44:172-4.
    1. Majewski W. Diagnostic laparoscopy for the acute abdomen and trauma. Surg Endosc 2000;14:930-7.
    1. Golash V, Willson PD. Early laparoscopy as a routine procedure in the management of acute abdominal pain: a review of 1,320 patients. Surg Endosc 2005;19:882-5.
    1. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37(2-4):1-332.
    1. Board on Radiation Effects Research (BRER). Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
    1. Stoker J. Magnetic resonance imaging and the acute abdomen. Br J Surg 2008;95:1193-4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner