A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients. | LitMetric

Objective: When the diagnosis of appendicitis is uncertain, computerized tomography (CT) scans are frequently ordered. Oral contrast is often used but is time consuming and of questionable benefit. This study compared CT with intravenous contrast alone (IV) to CT with IV and oral contrast (IVO) in adult patients with suspected appendicitis.

Methods: This is a prospective, randomized study conducted in a community teaching emergency department (ED). Patients with suspected appendicitis were randomized to IV or IVO CT. Scans were read independently by 2 designated study radiologists blinded to the clinical outcome. Surgical pathology was used to confirm appendicitis in patients who went to the operating room (OR). Discharged patients were followed up via telephone. The primary outcome measure was the diagnosis of appendicitis. Secondary measures included time from triage to ED disposition and triage to OR.

Results: Both IV (n = 114) and IVO (n = 113) scans had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.3-100 and 87.4-100, respectively) and negative predictive value (95% CI, 93.7-100 and 93.9-100, respectively) for appendicitis. Specificity of IV and IVO scans was 98.6 and 94.9 (95% CI, 91.6-99.9 and 86.9-98.4, respectively), respectively, with positive predictive values of 97.6 and 89.5 (95% CI, 85.9-99.9 and 74.2-96.6). Median times to ED disposition and OR were 1 hour and 31 minutes (P < .0001) and 1 hour and 10 minutes (P = .089) faster for the IV group, respectively. Patients with negative IV scans were discharged nearly 2 hours faster (P = .001).

Conclusions: Computerized tomography scans with intravenous contrast alone have comparable diagnostic performance to IVO scans for appendicitis in adults. Patients receiving IV scans are discharged from the ED faster than those receiving IVO scans.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.02.011DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ivo scans
16
intravenous contrast
12
oral contrast
12
diagnosis appendicitis
12
scans
9
adult patients
8
computerized tomography
8
tomography scans
8
patients suspected
8
hour minutes
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!