Advertisement

Evaluation of Acute Abdominal Pain with Computed Tomography

  • Zachary RepanshekEmail author
  • Evan Kingsley
Chapter

Abstract

Emergency physicians frequently utilize computed tomography (CT) to evaluate patients with abdominal pain. Acute causes of abdominal pain may be difficult to diagnose based on history and physical exam alone, and CT imaging is the modality of choice for most etiologies. When ordering a CT, physicians must decide whether to utilize intravenous or oral contrast. It is important to understand the benefits of a contrast-enhanced CT and weigh this against the risks of the contrast medium.

Keywords

Computed tomography Contrast reaction Intravenous contrast Contrast-induced nephropathy Oral contrast 

References

  1. 1.
    National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2014 Emergency Department. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2017. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2014_ed_web_tables.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Gans S, Pols M, Stoker J, Boermeester M. Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain. Dig Surg. 2015;32:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stoker J, Randen A, Lameris W, Boermeester M. Imaging patients with acute abdominal pain. Radiology. 2009;253(1):31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rawson JV, Pelletier AL. When to order a contrast-enhanced CT. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(5):312–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broder JS, Hamedani AG, Liu SW, Emerman CL. Emergency department contrast practices for abdominal/pelvic computed tomography-a national survey and comparison with the American college of radiology appropriateness criteria(®). J Emerg Med. 2013;44(2):423–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2017. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria.
  7. 7.
    American College of Radiology. ACR manual on contrast media. Version 10.3. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2017.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kopp AF, Mortele KJ, Cho YD, Palkowitsch P, Bettmann MA, Claussen CD. Prevalence of acute reactions to iopromide: postmarketing surveillance study of 74,717 patients. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(8):902–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Häussler MD. Safety and patient comfort with iodixanol: a postmarketing surveillance study in 9515 patients undergoing diagnostic CT examinations. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(8):924–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Caoili EM, Wang G, Francis IR. Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug;191(2):409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gottumukkala RV, Glover M 4th, Yun BJ, Sonis JD, Kalra MK, Otrakji A, Raja AS, Prabhakar AM. Allergic-like contrast reactions in the ED: incidence, management,and impact on patient disposition. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;36(5):825–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schabelman E, Witting M. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: a medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010;39(5):701–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tublin ME, Murphy ME, Tessler FN. Current concepts in contrast media-induced nephropathy. AJR. 1998;171:933–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wichmann JL, Katzberg RW, Litwin SE, Zwerner PL, De Cecco CN, Vogl TJ, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. Contrast-induced nephropathy. Circulation. 2015;132(20):1931–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Comin J, et al. Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast medium administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2013;267(1):119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH, Dillman JR, Myles JD, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology. 2013;268(3):719–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Carter RE, Katzberg RW, Kallmes DF, Williamson EE. Risk of intravenous contrast material-mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score-matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology. 2014;271(1):65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinson JS, Ehmann MR, Fine DM, Fishman EK, Toerper MF, Rothman RE, Klein EY. Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577–586.e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aycock RD, Westafer LM, Boxen JL, Majlesi N, Schoenfeld EM, Bannuru RR. Acute kidney injury after computed tomography: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;71(1):44–53.e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kielar AZ, Patlas MN, Katz DS. Oral contrast for CT in patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal and pelvic pain: what should be its current role? Emerg Radiol. 2016;23(5):477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Razavi SA, Johnson JO, Kassin MT, Applegate KE. The impact of introducing a no oral contrast abdominopelvic CT examination (NOCAPE) pathway on radiology turn around times, emergency department length of stay, and patient safety. Emerg Radiol. 2014;21(6):605–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levenson RB, Camacho MA, Horn E, Saghir A, McGillicuddy D, Sanchez LD. Eliminating routine oral contrast use for CT in the emergency department: impact on patient throughput and diagnosis. Emerg Radiol. 2012;19(6):513–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR. A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg. 2005;190(3):474–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drake FT, Alfonso R, Bhargava P, Cuevas C, Dighe MK, Florence MG, Johnson MG, Jurkovich GJ, Steele SR, Symons RG, Thirlby RC, Flum DR, Writing Group for SCOAP-CERTAIN. Enteral contrast in the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis: comparative effectiveness in a prospective surgical cohort. Ann Surg. 2014;260(2):311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kepner AM, Bacasnot JV, Stahlman BA. Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(9):1765–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laituri CA, Fraser JD, Aguayo P, Fike FB, Garey CL, Sharp SW, Ostlie DJ, St Peter SD. The lack of efficacy for oral contrast in the diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography. J Surg Res. 2011;170(1):100–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lewis Katz School of MedicineTemple University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Emergency MedicineTemple University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations