Abdominal imaging utilization in the emergency department: trends over two decades

Ali S Raja, Koenraad J Mortele, Richard Hanson, Aaron D Sodickson, Richard Zane, Ramin Khorasani, Ali S Raja, Koenraad J Mortele, Richard Hanson, Aaron D Sodickson, Richard Zane, Ramin Khorasani

Abstract

Background: To assess patterns of use of abdominal imaging in the emergency department (ED) from 1990 to 2009.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data on adult ED patients treated between 1990 and 2009 at our university-affiliated quaternary care institution. Examinations were coded by abdominal imaging modality: x-ray, sonography, CT, or MRI. Proportional costs for each imaging modality were evaluated using relative value units (RVUs). Chi-square tests were used to assess for significant trends.

Results: The intensity of abdominal imaging per 1,000 ED visits increased 19.3% from 1990-2009 (p = 0.0050). The number of abdominal CT scans per 1,000 ED visits increased 17.5-fold (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the number of abdominal MRIs per 1,000 ED visits increased from 0 to 1.0 (p < 0.0001), and the number of abdominal sonographs per 1,000 ED visits increased 51.6% (p = 0.0198). However, the number of x-ray examinations per 1,000 ED visits decreased 81.6% (p < 0.0001). Abdominal imaging RVUs per 1,000 ED visits increased 2.7-fold (p < 0.0001), due primarily to CT imaging, which accounted for 14% of RVUs in 1990 and 76% of RVUs in 2009.

Conclusions: The intensity of abdominal imaging examinations per 1,000 ED visits and the number of abdominal imaging RVUs increased significantly over a 20-year period. CT replaced x-ray as the most common abdominal imaging modality for evaluation of ED patients. In light of these increasing costs as well as the increased radiation exposure of CT, clinical decision rules and computerized decision support may be needed to ensure appropriate utilization of abdominal CT in the ED.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Annual number of ED visits.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of abdominal imaging studies per 1,000 ED visits.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Annual number of abdominal imaging studies per modality per 1,000 ED visits.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Relative Value Units (RVUs) per 1,000 ED visits.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Relative Value Units (RVUs) per modality per 1,000 ED visits.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Proportion of Relative Value Units (RVUs) attributable to each imaging modality.

References

    1. Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, Gilley DB, Gray JE, Ibbott GS, Lipoti JA, Mahesh M, McCrohan JL, Stabin MG, Thomadsen BR, Yoshizumi TT. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007. Radiology. 2009;253:520–531. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2532082010.
    1. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, Zane RD, Schiff GD, Hanson R, Baeyens PF, Khorasani R. Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology. 2010;256:460–465. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091570.
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Eng J Med. 2007;357:2277–2284. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra072149.
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim K, Mahesh M, Gould R, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Miglioretti DL. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078–2086. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427.
    1. Radiation Tests Are Questioned - Baltimore Sun.
    1. Tangible and Unseen Health-Care Costs - .
    1. Matin A, Bates DW, Sussman A, Ros P, Hanson R, Khorasani R. Inpatient radiology utilization: trends over the past decade. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:7–11. doi: 10.2214/AJR.04.0633.
    1. McCaig LF, Nawar EW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 2006. pp. 1–29.
    1. Flasar M. Acute abdominal pain. Med Clin North Am. 2006;90:481–503. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2005.11.005.
    1. Cartwright S, Knudson M. Evaluation of acute abdominal pain in adults. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77:971–978.
    1. Broder J, Warshauer DM. Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000-2005. Emerg Radiol. 2006;13:25–30. doi: 10.1007/s10140-006-0493-9.
    1. Pines JM. Trends in the rates of radiography use and important diagnoses in emergency department patients with abdominal pain. Med Care. 2009;47:782–786. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819748e9.
    1. Lee J, Kirschner J, Pawa S, Wiener DE, Newman DH, Shah K. Computed tomography use in the adult emergency department of an academic urban hospital from 2001 to 2007. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(6):591–6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.027.
    1. Levin D, Rao V, Parker L, Frangos A, Sunshine J. Recent trends in utilization rates of abdominal imaging: the relative roles of radiologists and nonradiologist physicians. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5:744–747. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.12.008.
    1. Gralla J, Spycher F, Pignolet C, Ozdoba C, Vock P, Hoppe H. Evaluation of a 16-MDCT scanner in an emergency department: initial clinical experience and workflow analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:232–238.
    1. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Nawfel RD, Hanson R, Khorasani R. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251:175–184. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2511081296.
    1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: Healthcare spending and the Medicare program.
    1. Hadley JL, Agola J, Wong P. Potential impact of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria on CT for Trauma. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:937–942. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0041.
    1. Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Longmaid HE, Reynolds KF, Wagner M, Raptopoulos V. Impact of abdominal CT on the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1391–1396.
    1. Stiell I, Wells G, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, Mcknight R, Verbeek R, Brison R, Cass D. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001;357:1391–1396. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04561-X.
    1. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Gent M, Turpie AG, Bormanis J, Weitz J, Chamberlain M, Bowie D, Barnes D, Hirsh J. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000;83:416–420.
    1. Kennish SJ, Bhatnagar P, Wah TM, Bush S, Irving HC. Is the KUB radiograph redundant for investigating acute ureteric colic in the non-contrast enhanced computed tomography era? Clin Radiol. 2008;63:1131–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.04.012.
    1. Helling TS, Wilson J, Augustosky K. The utility of focused abdominal ultrasound in blunt abdominal trauma: a reappraisal. Am J Surg. 2007;194:728–732. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.08.012. discussion 732-733.
    1. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, Title III, Subtitle A, Part III, Section 1115A. 2010.
    1. Stiell IG, Clement CM, Grimshaw J, Brison RJ, Rowe BH, Schull MJ, Lee JS, Brehaut J, McKnight RD, Eisenhauer MA, Dreyer J, Letovsky E, Rutledge T, MacPhail I, Ross S, Shah A, Perry JJ, Holroyd BR, Ip U, Lesiuk H, Wells GA. Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2009;339

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere