» Articles » PMID: 24598250

Enteral Contrast in the Computed Tomography Diagnosis of Appendicitis: Comparative Effectiveness in a Prospective Surgical Cohort

Abstract

Objective: Our goal was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of intravenous (IV)-only versus IV + enteral contrast in computed tomographic (CT) scans performed for patients undergoing appendectomy across a diverse group of hospitals.

Background: Small randomized trials from tertiary centers suggest that enteral contrast does not improve diagnostic performance of CT for suspected appendicitis, but generalizability has not been demonstrated. Eliminating enteral contrast may improve efficiency, patient comfort, and safety.

Methods: We analyzed data for adult patients who underwent nonelective appendectomy at 56 hospitals over a 2-year period. Data were obtained directly from patient charts by trained abstractors. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to adjust for potential confounding. The main outcome measure was concordance between final radiology interpretation and final pathology report.

Results: A total of 9047 adults underwent appendectomy and 8089 (89.4%) underwent CT, 54.1% of these with IV contrast only and 28.5% with IV + enteral contrast. Pathology findings correlated with radiographic findings in 90.0% of patients who received IV + enteral contrast and 90.4% of patients scanned with IV contrast alone. Hospitals were categorized as rural or urban and by their teaching status. Regardless of hospital type, there was no difference in concordance between IV-only and IV + enteral contrast. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbid conditions, weight, hospital type, and perforation, odds ratio of concordance for IV + enteral contrast versus IV contrast alone was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.72-1.25).

Conclusions: Enteral contrast does not improve CT evaluation of appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy. These broadly generalizable results from a diverse group of hospitals suggest that enteral contrast can be eliminated in CT scans for suspected appendicitis.

Citing Articles

Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis: Recommendations for CT Imaging Techniques and Practical Issues.

Park J, Kim H, Sim J, Lee K Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(7).

PMID: 35885490 PMC: 9320604. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071585.


The Evolution of Ultrasound in Medicine: A Case Report of Point-of-care Ultrasound in the Self-diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

Knapp B, Feyzeau K, Smith A, Byars D, Goodmurphy C, Jones M Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2020; 4(4):527-529.

PMID: 33217263 PMC: 7676787. DOI: 10.5811/cpcem.2020.7.48158.


Body mass index as an indicator of the likelihood of ultrasound visualization of the appendix in pregnant women with suspicion of appendicitis.

Vendrami C, Xu X, McCarthy R, Shin J, Goodhartz L, Horowitz J Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020; 45(9):2637-2646.

PMID: 32514628 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02610-7.


Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults.

Rud B, Vejborg T, Rappeport E, Reitsma J, Wille-Jorgensen P Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 2019(11).

PMID: 31743429 PMC: 6953397. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009977.pub2.


The Reliability of a Standardized Reporting System for the Diagnosis of Appendicitis.

Simianu V, Shamitoff A, Hippe D, Godwin B, Shriki J, Drake F Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016; 46(4):267-274.

PMID: 27743632 PMC: 5821469. DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.07.006.


References
1.
Webb E, Nguyen A, Wang Z, Stengel J, Westphalen A, Coakley F . The negative appendectomy rate: who benefits from preoperative CT?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(4):861-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5369. View

2.
Lee C, Golub R, Singer A, Cantu Jr R, Levinson H . Routine versus selective abdominal computed tomography scan in the evaluation of right lower quadrant pain: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 14(2):117-22. DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.08.007. View

3.
Hemmila M, Birkmeyer N, Arbabi S, Osborne N, Wahl W, Dimick J . Introduction to propensity scores: A case study on the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Arch Surg. 2010; 145(10):939-45. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.193. View

4.
Drake F, Florence M, Johnson M, Jurkovich G, Kwon S, Schmidt Z . Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg. 2012; 256(4):586-94. PMC: 3475492. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826a9602. View

5.
Lane M, Liu D, Huynh M, Jeffrey Jr R, Mindelzun R, Katz D . Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology. 1999; 213(2):341-6. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv44341. View