Trends in visits, imaging, and diagnosis for emergency department abdominal pain presentations in the United States, 2007-2019.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1111/acem.15017
Rachel R Wu, Michael N Adjei-Poku, Rachel R Kelz, Gregory L Peck, Ula Hwang, Anne R Cappola, Ari B Friedman
{"title":"Trends in visits, imaging, and diagnosis for emergency department abdominal pain presentations in the United States, 2007-2019.","authors":"Rachel R Wu, Michael N Adjei-Poku, Rachel R Kelz, Gregory L Peck, Ula Hwang, Anne R Cappola, Ari B Friedman","doi":"10.1111/acem.15017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Abdominal pain is the most common reason for visit (RFV) to the emergency department (ED) for adults, yet no standardized diagnostic pathway exists for abdominal pain. Optimal management is age-specific; symptoms, diagnoses, and prognoses differ between young and old adults. Availability and knowledge of the effectiveness of various imaging modalities have also changed over time. We compared diagnostic imaging rates for younger versus older adults to identify practice patterns of abdominal imaging across age groups over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed weighted, nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2007-2019 for adult ED visits with a primary RFV of abdominal pain. We included 23,364 sampled visits, representing 123 million visits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2007 to 2019, total visits increased for ages 18-45 (p < 0.001), 46-64 (p < 0.001), and 65+ (p = 0.032). The percentage of visits with primary RFV of abdominal pain increased from 9.4% to 11.6% for ages 18-45, 7.8%-9.0% for ages 46-64, and 6.0%-6.5% for 65+. Computed tomography (CT) scan rates increased over time from 26.2% of all patients receiving a CT scan to 42.6%. Relative percentage change in abdominal CT scans was greatest for older adults, with a 30.3% increase, compared to 24.0% for middle-aged adults and 15.0% for young adults. Test positivity, defined as receiving an emergency general surgical diagnosis after CT or ultrasound, increased from 17.2% in 2007 to 22.9% in 2019 (p < 0.01). Of the older adults with abdominal pain in 2019, 13% received an X-ray only, which is neither sensitive nor specific for acute pathology in older adults.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite more abdominal pain ED visits and increased imaging rates per visit, test positivity continues to rise. Our findings do not support claims that CT and ultrasound are being used less appropriately over time, but demonstrate widespread use of X-rays, which are potentially ineffective for abdominal pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Abdominal pain is the most common reason for visit (RFV) to the emergency department (ED) for adults, yet no standardized diagnostic pathway exists for abdominal pain. Optimal management is age-specific; symptoms, diagnoses, and prognoses differ between young and old adults. Availability and knowledge of the effectiveness of various imaging modalities have also changed over time. We compared diagnostic imaging rates for younger versus older adults to identify practice patterns of abdominal imaging across age groups over time.

Methods: We analyzed weighted, nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2007-2019 for adult ED visits with a primary RFV of abdominal pain. We included 23,364 sampled visits, representing 123 million visits.

Results: From 2007 to 2019, total visits increased for ages 18-45 (p < 0.001), 46-64 (p < 0.001), and 65+ (p = 0.032). The percentage of visits with primary RFV of abdominal pain increased from 9.4% to 11.6% for ages 18-45, 7.8%-9.0% for ages 46-64, and 6.0%-6.5% for 65+. Computed tomography (CT) scan rates increased over time from 26.2% of all patients receiving a CT scan to 42.6%. Relative percentage change in abdominal CT scans was greatest for older adults, with a 30.3% increase, compared to 24.0% for middle-aged adults and 15.0% for young adults. Test positivity, defined as receiving an emergency general surgical diagnosis after CT or ultrasound, increased from 17.2% in 2007 to 22.9% in 2019 (p < 0.01). Of the older adults with abdominal pain in 2019, 13% received an X-ray only, which is neither sensitive nor specific for acute pathology in older adults.

Conclusions: Despite more abdominal pain ED visits and increased imaging rates per visit, test positivity continues to rise. Our findings do not support claims that CT and ultrasound are being used less appropriately over time, but demonstrate widespread use of X-rays, which are potentially ineffective for abdominal pain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2007-2019 年美国急诊科腹痛病例的就诊、成像和诊断趋势。
目的:腹痛是成年人到急诊科(ED)就诊的最常见原因(RFV),但目前还没有针对腹痛的标准化诊断途径。最佳治疗方法因年龄而异;年轻人和老年人的症状、诊断和预后都不尽相同。随着时间的推移,各种成像方式的可用性和对其有效性的认识也在发生变化。我们比较了年轻人和老年人的影像诊断率,以确定不同年龄组的腹部影像学实践模式:我们分析了 2007-2019 年全国医院非住院医疗护理调查(National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 2007-2019)中具有全国代表性的加权数据,这些数据针对以腹痛为主要 RFV 的成人急诊就诊。我们纳入了 23364 个抽样就诊人次,代表了 1.23 亿人次:结果:从 2007 年到 2019 年,18-45 岁年龄段的总就诊人次有所增加(p 结论:尽管腹痛急诊就诊人次增加,但就诊人次却减少了:尽管腹痛急诊就诊人数增加,每次就诊的成像率提高,但检查阳性率仍在继续上升。我们的研究结果并不支持关于随着时间的推移,CT 和超声波的使用越来越不恰当的说法,但却证明了 X 射线的广泛使用,而 X 射线对腹痛可能是无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Can first impressions predict patient outcomes? Epidemiology of sepsis presentations and management among United States emergency departments from 2016 to 2023. Ruling out pulmonary embolism safely: Standardized reporting of the failure rate. Opening invisible wounds. Failure rate of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for adults 35 years or younger: Findings from the RIETE Registry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1