» Articles » PMID: 35505853

Are We Overusing Abdominal Computed Tomography Scans in Young Patients Referred in an Emergency for Acute Abdominal Pain?

Overview
Journal Pol J Radiol
Publisher Termedia
Specialty Radiology
Date 2022 May 4
PMID 35505853
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The primary objective was to assess the frequency of appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) for acute abdominal pain (AAP) in the emergency department; the secondary aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-sound (US) and CT in the diagnosis of the aetiology of AAP for diseases that can be diagnosed by US; and the third objective was to assess extent to which inappropriate CT examinations for AAP result in ionizing radiation exposure.

Material And Methods: In this retrospective single-centre study, we included patients aged between 15 and 46 years referred to the emergency department for AAP in 2016 and submitted to abdominal CT scans, collecting a total of 586 patients. In 152 patients with the more frequent pathologies, we compared the referral reason and current guidelines of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) IGUIDE®. Then we measured and compared the sensitivity of US and CT for the identification of the aetiology of AAP for diseases whose diagnosis can be reached by US. We also recorded the mean computed tomography dose index (CTDI), dose length product (DLP) and its standard deviation, and we calculated the effective dose (ED) using CT-Expo® software.

Results: According to IGUIDE and based on the clinical suspicion of CT requests, CT examination was considered crucial in 264 (45.05%) patients. 322 patients had a referral reason for CT scan that could be considered "possibly appropriate" according Iguide criteria (4, 5, 6 scoring). Of these, 135 had an inappropriate CT request according to image findings.

Conclusions: A better clinical framing and a correct interpretation of the reference guidelines could reduce unjustified exposure to ionizing radiation.

Citing Articles

Impact of connective tissue diseases on inpatient outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding: insights from a national database analysis.

Johnson A, Piplani S, Akpan E, Zinobia K, Bachan M, Radulovic M Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024; 9:35.

PMID: 39091649 PMC: 11292097. DOI: 10.21037/tgh-24-5.


Evaluating the Accuracy and Impact of the ESR-iGuide Decision Support Tool in Optimizing CT Imaging Referral Appropriateness.

Luxenburg O, Vaknin S, Wilf-Miron R, Saban M J Imaging Inform Med. 2024; 38(1):357-367.

PMID: 39028357 PMC: 11811312. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01197-5.


Advancing acceptance: assessing acceptance of the ESR iGuide clinical decision support system for improved computed tomography test justification.

Singer C, Luxenburg O, Rosen S, Vaknin S, Saban M Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 10:1234597.

PMID: 38162879 PMC: 10756707. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1234597.

References
1.
. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37(2-4):1-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003. View

2.
Hamada N, Fujimichi Y . Classification of radiation effects for dose limitation purposes: history, current situation and future prospects. J Radiat Res. 2014; 55(4):629-40. PMC: 4100010. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rru019. View

3.
Hernanz-Schulman M . CT and US in the diagnosis of appendicitis: an argument for CT. Radiology. 2010; 255(1):3-7. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09091211. View

4.
Panes J, Bouzas R, Chaparro M, Garcia-Sanchez V, Gisbert J, Martinez de Guerenu B . Systematic review: the use of ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, assessment of activity and abdominal complications of Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 34(2):125-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04710.x. View

5.
Calabrese E, La Seta F, Buccellato A, Virdone R, Pallotta N, Corazziari E . Crohn's disease: a comparative prospective study of transabdominal ultrasonography, small intestine contrast ultrasonography, and small bowel enema. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2005; 11(2):139-45. DOI: 10.1097/00054725-200502000-00007. View