Diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes of computed tomography colonography in a sick inpatient population

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Clinical Imaging Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2025.110401
Jessica T. Lovett , Chenchan Huang , Vinay Prabhu
{"title":"Diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes of computed tomography colonography in a sick inpatient population","authors":"Jessica T. Lovett ,&nbsp;Chenchan Huang ,&nbsp;Vinay Prabhu","doi":"10.1016/j.clinimag.2025.110401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Though prior studies have proven CTC's efficacy in outpatients, its utility in the inpatient setting has not been studied. We evaluated the efficacy of a modified CTC protocol in the inpatient setting, primarily for patients awaiting organ transplantation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective study compared a group of inpatient CTCs from 2019 to 2021 and a randomly selected, age-matched 2:1 control group of outpatient CTCs. Both groups were assessed based on established criteria from literature.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>10 % (63/652) of CTCs were performed in the inpatient setting, of which 29 were excluded, yielding 34 inpatient cases. 90 % (589/652) of CTCs were performed in the outpatient setting, from which 68 randomly selected, age-matched patients were selected as controls. Significantly more (24 %, 8/34) inpatients expired due to extracolonic causes (vs. 1 %, 1/68 outpatients, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). 62 % (21/34) of inpatient CTCs were reported as diagnostic (vs. 74 %, 50/68 outpatient, <em>p</em> = 0.22). Significantly more inpatients (12 %, 4/34) than outpatients (1 %, 1/68) were unable to tolerate two imaging positions (<em>p</em> = 0.02). Subsequent colonoscopy was performed in 24 % (8/34) of inpatients, revealing pathologies including colonic polyps and non-bleeding ulcers. Inpatient CTCs had lower average quality scores, significant for one reviewer (<em>p</em> = 0.009–0.054). Inpatients had a larger number of segments with: &gt;25 % residual fluid (1.22–1.28 inpatients vs. 0.60–0.73 outpatients, <em>p</em> = 0.003–0.026) and inadequate fluid tagging (1.10 inpatients vs. 0.49 outpatients, <em>p</em> = 0.046–0.0501). Distention was not significantly different between groups (<em>p</em> = 0.317–0.410).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Quality of inpatient CTC was inferior to outpatient CTCs across several metrics. 24 % undergoing inpatient CTC died of extracolonic causes within 22 months, and most did not have findings warranting intervention, questioning the value of this difficult exam in this patient population. Routine CT may be sufficient to exclude large or metastatic colonic lesions precluding transplant.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50680,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Imaging","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 110401"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707125000014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Though prior studies have proven CTC's efficacy in outpatients, its utility in the inpatient setting has not been studied. We evaluated the efficacy of a modified CTC protocol in the inpatient setting, primarily for patients awaiting organ transplantation.

Methods

This retrospective study compared a group of inpatient CTCs from 2019 to 2021 and a randomly selected, age-matched 2:1 control group of outpatient CTCs. Both groups were assessed based on established criteria from literature.

Results

10 % (63/652) of CTCs were performed in the inpatient setting, of which 29 were excluded, yielding 34 inpatient cases. 90 % (589/652) of CTCs were performed in the outpatient setting, from which 68 randomly selected, age-matched patients were selected as controls. Significantly more (24 %, 8/34) inpatients expired due to extracolonic causes (vs. 1 %, 1/68 outpatients, p < 0.05). 62 % (21/34) of inpatient CTCs were reported as diagnostic (vs. 74 %, 50/68 outpatient, p = 0.22). Significantly more inpatients (12 %, 4/34) than outpatients (1 %, 1/68) were unable to tolerate two imaging positions (p = 0.02). Subsequent colonoscopy was performed in 24 % (8/34) of inpatients, revealing pathologies including colonic polyps and non-bleeding ulcers. Inpatient CTCs had lower average quality scores, significant for one reviewer (p = 0.009–0.054). Inpatients had a larger number of segments with: >25 % residual fluid (1.22–1.28 inpatients vs. 0.60–0.73 outpatients, p = 0.003–0.026) and inadequate fluid tagging (1.10 inpatients vs. 0.49 outpatients, p = 0.046–0.0501). Distention was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.317–0.410).

Conclusion

Quality of inpatient CTC was inferior to outpatient CTCs across several metrics. 24 % undergoing inpatient CTC died of extracolonic causes within 22 months, and most did not have findings warranting intervention, questioning the value of this difficult exam in this patient population. Routine CT may be sufficient to exclude large or metastatic colonic lesions precluding transplant.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Imaging
Clinical Imaging 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
265
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: The mission of Clinical Imaging is to publish, in a timely manner, the very best radiology research from the United States and around the world with special attention to the impact of medical imaging on patient care. The journal''s publications cover all imaging modalities, radiology issues related to patients, policy and practice improvements, and clinically-oriented imaging physics and informatics. The journal is a valuable resource for practicing radiologists, radiologists-in-training and other clinicians with an interest in imaging. Papers are carefully peer-reviewed and selected by our experienced subject editors who are leading experts spanning the range of imaging sub-specialties, which include: -Body Imaging- Breast Imaging- Cardiothoracic Imaging- Imaging Physics and Informatics- Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine- Musculoskeletal and Emergency Imaging- Neuroradiology- Practice, Policy & Education- Pediatric Imaging- Vascular and Interventional Radiology
期刊最新文献
Contents Mechanical clot disruption during pulmonary thromboembolectomy is safe: A propensity score-matched analysis Evaluation of aortic stent endoleaks in the renally impaired patient with ferumoxytol-enhanced MR angiography Advancing breast cancer screening through information-theoretic approaches and AI Corrigendum to “Comprehensive multimodality imaging review of reproductive interventions and their complications” [Clin. Imaging (December 2024) 110312]
×
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