Oral contrast administration for abdominal and pelvic CT scan in emergency setting: is there a happy medium?

Optimizing Outpatient Oral Contrast Use in Abdominal CT-A Radiology Pandemic Response Initiative to Reduce Patient Time in the Waiting Room and Reduce Costs, While Improving Patient Experience

Purpose: The aim was to reduce outpatient wait time and improve patient experience by optimising oral contrast use. Methods: Our multidisciplinary stakeholder collaboration implemented two simultaneous interventions: (1) Creation of 'oral contrast policy', limiting recommended indications. (2) Creation of a new shorter oral contrast regime (30 vs 60 min). We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of oral contrast use in outpatient (OP) abdominal CT at baseline and post-intervention. Patient wait times were measured and per-patient cost-savings were reported. An image quality review was performed by 2 blinded abdominal radiologists. Patient experience was evaluated with a standard voluntary survey. Statistical analysis was performed comparing baseline and evaluation outcomes using Chi-square or Fisher Exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test or ANOVA for continuous data. Results: Over 1-month periods, OP CT scans were assessed in baseline (pre-pandemic) n = 575, baseline (pandemic) n = 495 and post-intervention n = 545 groups. Oral contrast use reduced from 420/575, 73.0% at baseline to 178/545, 32.7% post intervention. The turn-around time reduced by 15.8 minutes per patient from 70.3 to 54.5 minutes, P < .001 (Interventions 1 and 2). The diagnostic quality did not differ between the oral contrast regimes (Intervention 2, P = 1.0, P = .08). No repeat CTs were needed due to lack of oral contrast (Intervention 1) or poor opacification (Intervention 2). There was oral contrast cost reductions of 69.1-78.4% (P < .001). Patients reported their overall experience was improved post-intervention (Interventions 1 and 2). Conclusions: Optimising the CT oral contrast service through judicious use and a shorter regime, reduced patient wait times, improved patient experience and preserved diagnostic quality.

Positive oral contrast material for CT evaluation of non-traumatic abdominal pain in the ED: prospective assessment of diagnostic confidence and throughput metrics

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of positive oral contrast material (POCM) for non-traumatic abdominal pain on diagnostic confidence, diagnostic rate, and ED throughput.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ED oral contrast guidelines were changed to limit use of POCM. A total of 2,690 abdominopelvic CT exams performed for non-traumatic abdominal pain were prospectively evaluated for diagnostic confidence (5-point scale at 20% increments; 5 = 80-100% confidence) during a 24-month period. Impact on ED metrics including time from CT order to exam, preliminary read, ED length of stay (LOS), and repeat CT scan within 7 days was assessed. A subset of cases (n = 729) was evaluated for diagnostic rate. Data were collected at 2 time points, 6 and 24 months following the change.

RESULTS

A total of 38 reviewers were participated (28 trainees, 10 staff). 1238 exams (46%) were done with POCM, 1452 (54%) were performed without POCM. For examinations with POCM, 80% of exams received a diagnostic confidence score of 5 (mean, 4.78 ± 0.43; 99% ≥ 4), whereas 60% of exams without POCM received a score of 5 (mean, 4.51 ± 0.70; 92% ≥ 4; p < .001). Trainees scored 1,523 exams (57%, 722 + POCM, 801 -POCM) and showed even lower diagnostic confidence in cases without PCOM compared with faculty (mean, 4.43 ± 0.68 vs. 4.59 ± 0.71; p < 0.001). Diagnostic rate in a randomly selected subset of exams (n = 729) was 54.2% in the POCM group versus 56.1% without POCM (p < 0.655). CT order to exam time decreased by 31 min, order to preliminary read decreased by 33 min, and ED LOS decreased by 30 min (approximately 8% of total LOS) in the group without POCM compared to those with POCM (p < 0.001 for all). 205 patients had a repeat scan within 7 days, 74 (36%) had IV contrast only, 131 (64%) had both IV and oral contrast on initial exam. Findings were consistent both over a 6-month evaluation period as well as the full 24-month study period.

CONCLUSION

Limiting use of POCM in the ED for non-traumatic abdominal pain improved ED throughput but impaired diagnostic confidence, particularly in trainees; however, it did not significantly impact diagnostic rates nor proportion of repeat CT exams.

Positive Oral Contrast Material for Abdominal CT: Current Clinical Indications and Areas of Controversy

OBJECTIVE. The use of positive oral contrast material for abdominal CT is a frequent protocol issue. Confusion abounds regarding its use, and practice patterns often appear arbitrary. Turning to the existing literature for answers is unrewarding, because most studies are underpowered or not designed to address key endpoints. Even worse, many decisions are now being driven by nonradiologists for throughput gains rather than patient-specific considerations. Herein, the current indications for positive oral contrast material are discussed, including areas of controversy. CONCLUSION. As radiologists, we owe it to our patients to drive the appropriate use of positive oral contrast material. At the very least, we should not allow nonradiologists to restrict its use solely on the basis of throughput concerns; rather, we should allow considerations of image quality and diagnostic confidence to enter into the decision process. Based on differences in prior training and practice patterns, some radiologists will prefer to limit the use of positive oral contrast material more than others. However, for those who believe (as I do) that it can genuinely increase diagnostic confidence and can sometimes (rather unpredictably) make a major impact on diagnosis, it behooves us to keep fighting for its use.