Repeat CT Performed Within One Month of CT Conducted in the Emergency Department for Abdominal Pain: A Secondary Analysis of Data From a Prospective Multicenter Study

Recurrent abdominal pain visits to the emergency department: A case report using the Central Sensitization Inventory

Chronic pain conditions are among the most common complaints seen in the emergency department (ED). Exacerbations of these conditions are often approached as one would an acute painful condition, with liberal use of imaging, labs, and analgesics. This patient population is often prescribed short courses of opioids without a definite explanation for their painful episodes and often leave the ED dissatisfied with their experience. We describe a patient with a history of chronic abdominal pain who presented to the ED with an exacerbation of his pain. Upon further review of his previous records, we noted that this patient experienced many similar events, resulting in 46 imaging studies over the past year. At this point, the patient was given the Central Sensitization Inventory, and his score demonstrated severe underlying central sensitization. The patient was counseled about his condition and provided with appropriate follow-up care.

Patient recalls associated with resident-to-attending radiology report discrepancies: predictive factors for risky discrepancies

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify predictive factors for risky discrepancies in the emergency department (ED) by analyzing patient recalls associated with resident-to-attending radiology report discrepancies (RRDs).

RESULTS

This retrospective study analyzed 759 RRDs in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging and their outcomes from 2013 to 2021. After excluding 73 patients lost to follow-up, we included 686 records in the final analysis. Risky discrepancies were defined as RRDs resulting in (1) inpatient management (hospitalization) and (2) adverse outcomes (delayed operations, 30-day in-hospital mortality, or intensive care unit admission). Predictors of risky discrepancies were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The overall RRD rate was 0.4% (759 of 171,419). Of 686 eligible patients, 21.4% (147 of 686) received inpatient management, and 6.0% (41 of 686) experienced adverse outcomes. RRDs with neurological diseases were associated with the highest ED revisit rate (79.4%, 81 of 102) but not with risky RRDs. Predictive factors of inpatient management were critical finding (odds ratio [OR], 5.60; p < 0.001), CT examination (OR, 3.93; p = 0.01), digestive diseases (OR, 2.54; p < 0.001), and late finalized report (OR, 1.65; p = 0.02). Digestive diseases (OR, 6.14; p = 0.006) were identified as the only significant predictor of adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Risky RRDs were associated with several factors, including CT examination, digestive diseases, and late finalized reports, as well as critical image findings. This knowledge could aid in determining the priority of discrepancies for the appropriate management of RRDs.

Trend in CT utilisation and its impact on length of stay, readmission and hospital mortality in Western Australia tertiary hospitals: an analysis of linked administrative data 2003-2015

OBJECTIVE

High use of CT scanning has raised concern due to the potential ionising radiation exposure. This study examined trends of CT during admission to tertiary hospitals and its associations with length of stay (LOS), readmission and mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study from 2003 to 2015.

SETTING

West Australian linked administrative records at individual level.

PARTICIPANTS

2 375 787 episodes of tertiary hospital admission in adults aged 18+ years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

LOS, 30-day readmissions and mortality stratified by CT use status (any, multiple (CTs to multiple areas during episode), and repeat (repeated CT to the same area)).

METHODS

Multivariable regression models were used to calculate adjusted rate of CT use status. The significance of changes since 2003 in the outcomes (LOS, 30-day readmission and mortality) was compared among patients with specific CT imaging status relative to those without.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2015, while the rate of CT increased 3.4% annually, the rate of repeat CTs significantly decreased -1.8% annually and multiple CT showed no change. Compared with 2003 while LOS had a greater decrease in those with any CT, 30-day readmissions had a greater increase among those with any CT, while the probability of mortality remained unchanged between the any CT/no CT groups. A similar result was observed in patients with multiple and repeat CT scanning, except for a significant increase in mortality in the recent years in the repeat CT group.

CONCLUSION

The observed pattern of increase in CT utilisation is likely to be activity-based funding policy-driven based on the discordance between LOS and readmissions. Meanwhile, the repeat CT reduction aligns with a more selective strategy of use based on clinical severity. Future research should incorporate in-hospital and out-of-hospital CT to better understand overall CT trends and potential shifts between settings over time.

Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department 2 (GRACE-2): Low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.

e Silva L, Bellolio F, Upadhye S, Broder JS. Repeat computed tomography in recurrent abdominal pain: An evidence synthesis for guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low-risk abdominal pain adult ED patients.

METHODS

An electronic search was designed for the patient-intervention-control-outcome-timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index-negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life-threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging.

RESULTS

Although 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low-risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%-47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%-67%).

CONCLUSION

Due to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low-risk recurrent abdominal pain.

On-call abdominal ultrasonography: the rate of negative examinations and incidentalomas in a European tertiary care center

Objectives

To determine the proportions of abdominal US examinations during on-call hours that are negative and that contain an incidentaloma, and to explore temporal changes and determinants.

Methods

This study included 1615 US examinations that were done during on-call hours at a tertiary care center between 2005 and 2017.

Results

The total proportion of negative US examinations was 49.2% (795/1615). The total proportion of US examinations with an incidentaloma was 8.0% (130/1615). There were no significant temporal changes in either one of these proportions. The likelihood of a negative US examination was significantly higher when requested by anesthesiology [odds ratio (OR) 2.609, P = 0.011], or when the indication for US was focused on gallbladder and biliary ducts (OR 1.556, P = 0.007), transplant (OR 2.371, P = 0.005), trauma (OR 3.274, P < 0.001), or urolithiasis/postrenal obstruction (OR 3.366, P < 0.001). In contrast, US examinations were significantly less likely to be negative when requested by urology (OR 0.423, P = 0.014), or when the indication for US was acute oncology (OR 0.207, P = 0.045) or appendicitis (OR 0.260, P < 0.001). The likelihood of an incidentaloma on US was significantly higher in older patients (OR 1.020 per year of age increase, P < 0.001) or when the liver was evaluated with US (OR 3.522, P < 0.001).

Discussion

Nearly 50% of abdominal US examinations during on-call hours are negative, and 8% reveal an incidentaloma. Requesting specialty and indication for US affect the likelihood of a negative examination, and higher patient age and liver evaluations increase the chance of detecting an incidentaloma in this setting. These data may potentially be used to improve clinical reasoning and restrain overutilization of imaging.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00261-022-03525-1.

Impact of diagnostic errors on adverse outcomes: learning from emergency department revisits with repeat CT or MRI

Background

To investigate diagnostic errors and their association with adverse outcomes (AOs) during patient revisits with repeat imaging (RVRIs) in the emergency department (ED).

Results

Diagnostic errors stemming from index imaging studies and AOs within 30 days in 1054 RVRIs (≤ 7 days) from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively analyzed according to revisit timing (early [≤ 72 h] or late [> 72 h to 7 days] RVRIs). Risk factors for AOs were assessed using multivariable logistic analysis. The AO rate in the diagnostic error group was significantly higher than that in the non-error group (33.3% [77 of 231] vs. 14.8% [122 of 823], p < .001). The AO rate was the highest in early revisits within 72 h if diagnostic errors occurred (36.2%, 54 of 149). The most common diseases associated with diagnostic errors were digestive diseases in the radiologic misdiagnosis category (47.5%, 28 of 59) and neurologic diseases in the delayed radiology reporting time (46.8%, 29 of 62) and clinician error (27.3%, 30 of 110) categories. In the matched set of the AO and non-AO groups, multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the following diagnostic errors contributed to AO occurrence: radiologic error (odds ratio [OR] 3.56; p < .001) in total RVRIs, radiologic error (OR 3.70; p = .001) and clinician error (OR 4.82; p = .03) in early RVRIs, and radiologic error (OR 3.36; p = .02) in late RVRIs.

Conclusion

Diagnostic errors in index imaging studies are strongly associated with high AO rates in RVRIs in the ED.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-021-01108-0.

Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department: Missed Diagnoses

Abdominal pain is the most common chief complaint in the Emergency Department. Abdominal pain is caused by a variety of gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal disorders. Some frequently missed conditions include biliary pathology, appendicitis, diverticulitis, and urogenital pathology. The Emergency Medicine clinician must consider all aspects of the patient's presentation including history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and imaging. If no diagnosis is identified, close reassessment of pain, vital signs, and physical examination are necessary to ensure safe discharge. Strict verbal and written return precautions should be provided to the patient.