Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-09-2013 | Gastrointestinal

Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review

Authors: Chau Hung Lee, Benjamin Haaland, Arul Earnest, Cher Heng Tan

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2013

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether positive oral contrast agents improve accuracy of abdominopelvic CT compared with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent.

Methods

Literature was searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of abdominopelvic CT with positive oral contrast agents against imaging with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. Meta-analysis reviewed studies correlating CT findings of blunt abdominal injury with positive and without oral contrast agents against surgical, autopsy or clinical outcome allowing derivation of pooled sensitivity and specificity. Systematic review was performed on studies with common design and reference standard.

Results

Thirty-two studies were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 15 studies comparing CT with positive and without oral contrast agents. Meta-analysis of five studies from group 1 provided no difference in sensitivity or specificity between CT with positive or without oral contrast agents. Group 2 comprised 17 studies comparing CT with positive and neutral or negative oral contrast agents. Systematic review of 12 studies from group 2 indicated that neutral or negative oral contrasts were as effective as positive oral contrast agents for bowel visualisation.

Conclusions

There is no difference in accuracy between CT performed with positive oral contrast agents or with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent.

Key Points

• There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with or without oral contrast agent.

• There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with Gastrografin or water.

•Omission of oral contrast, utilising neutral or negative oral contrast agent saves time, costs and decreases risk of aspiration.

Medscape (2008) Oral contrast for abdominal CT: how important is it and how long does it take? Available via http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/570343?src=top10. Accessed April 16, 2008

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269PubMedCrossRef

Lee Y, Nelder JA, Pawitan Y (2006) Generalized linear models with random effects: unified analysis via H-likelihood. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonCrossRef

DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188PubMedCrossRef

Thompson SG, Higgins JPT (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573PubMedCrossRef

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558PubMedCrossRef

Penny FW, Anne WS, Marie EW et al (2011) QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRef

Holmes JF, Offerman SR, Chang CH et al (2004) Performance of helical computed tomography without oral contrast for the detection of gastrointestinal injuries. Ann Emerg Med 43:120–128PubMedCrossRef

Clancy TV, Ragozzino MW, Ramshaw D, Churchill MP, Covington DL, Maxwell JG (1993) Oral contrast is not necessary in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma by computed tomography. Am J Surg 166:680–684PubMedCrossRef

10.

Allen TL, Cummins BF, Bonk RT, Harker CP, Handrahan DL, Stevens MH (2005) Computed tomography without oral contrast solution for blunt diaphragmatic injuries in abdominal trauma. Am J Emerg Med 23:253–258PubMedCrossRef

11.

Allen TL, Mueller MT, Bonk RT, Harker CP, Duffy OH, Stevens MH (2004) Computed tomographic scanning without oral contrast solution for blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries in abdominal trauma. J Trauma 56:314–322PubMedCrossRef

12.

Stafford RE, McGonigal MD, Weigelt JA, Johnson TJ (1999) Oral contrast solution and computed tomography for blunt abdominal trauma: a randomized study. Arch Surg 134:622–626PubMedCrossRef

13.

Stuhlfaut JW, Soto JA, Lucey BC et al (2004) Blunt abdominal trauma: performance of CT without oral contrast material. Radiology 233:689–694PubMedCrossRef

14.

Tsang BD, Panacek EA, Brant WE, Wisner DH (1997) Effect of oral contrast administration for abdominal computed tomography in the evaluation of acute blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 30:7–13PubMedCrossRef

15.

Shankar KR, Lloyd DA, Kitteringham L, Carty HM (1999) Oral contrast with computed tomography in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma in children. Br J Surg 86:1073–1077PubMedCrossRef

16.

Victoria T, Mahboubi S (2010) Normal appendiceal diameter in children: does choice of CT oral contrast (VoLumen versus Gastrografin) make a difference? Emerg Radiol 17:397–401PubMedCrossRef

17.

Berther R, Patak MA, Eckhardt B, Erturk SM, Zollikofer CL (2008) Comparison of neutral oral contrast versus positive oral contrast medium in abdominal multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 18:1902–1909PubMedCrossRef

18.

Erturk SM, Mortele KJ, Oliva MR et al (2008) Depiction of normal gastrointestinal anatomy with MDCT: comparison of low- and high-attenuation oral contrast media. Eur J Radiol 66:84–87PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hebert JJ, Taylor AJ, Winter TC, Reichelderfer M, Weichert JP (2006) Low-attenuation oral GI contrast agents in abdominal-pelvic computed tomography. Abdom Imaging 31:48–53PubMedCrossRef

20.

Halsted MJ, Racadio JM, Emery KH et al (2004) Oral contrast agents for CT of abdominal trauma in pediatric patients: a comparison of dilute hypaque and water. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1555–1559PubMedCrossRef

21.

Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM et al (2006) Evaluation of bowel distension and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi–detector row CT. Radiology 238:87–95PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ramsay DW, Markham DH, Morgan B, Rodgers PM, Liddicoat AJ (2001) The use of dilute Calogen as a fat density oral contrast medium in upper abdominal computed tomography, compared with the use of water and positive oral contrast media. Clin Radiol 56:670–673PubMedCrossRef

23.

Thompson SE, Raptopoulos V, Sheiman RL, McNicholas MM, Prassopoulos P (1999) Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent. Radiology 211:870–875PubMed

24.

Zwaan M, Gmelin E, Borgis KJ, Rinast E (1992) Non-absorbable fat-dense oral contrast agent for abdominal computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 14:189–191PubMedCrossRef

25.

Malik N, Khandelwal N, Garg K, Suri S (1992) Computed tomography of the abdomen with fat density oral contrast medium. Australas Radiol 36:31–33PubMedCrossRef

26.

Raptopoulos V, Davis MA, Davidoff A et al (1987) Fat-density oral contrast agent for abdominal CT. Radiology 164:653–656PubMed

27.

Huynh LN, Coughlin BF, Wolfe J, Blank F, Lee SY, Smithline HA (2004) Patient encounter time intervals in the evaluation of emergency department patients requiring abdominopelvic CT: oral contrast versus no contrast. Emerg Radiol 10:310–313PubMed

28.

Winter T (2010) A plea for oral contrast administration in CT for emergency department patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W90PubMedCrossRef

29.

Nastanski F, Cohen A, Lush SP, DiStante A, Theuer CP (2001) The role of oral contrast administration immediately prior to the computed tomographic evaluation of the blunt trauma victim. Injury 32:545–549PubMedCrossRef

30.

Hamlin DJ, Burgener FA (1981) Positive and negative contrast agents in CT evaluation of the abdomen and pelvis. J Comput Tomogr 5:82–90PubMedCrossRef

31.

Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB, Mindelzun RE, Katz DS (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: non-enhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 213:341–346PubMed

32.

Anderson SW, Soto JA, Lucey BC et al (2009) Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1282–1288PubMedCrossRef

33.

Latifi A, Labruto F, Kaiser S, Ullberg U, Sundin A, Torkzad MR (2011) Does enteral contrast increase the accuracy of appendicitis diagnosis? Radiol Technol 82:294–299PubMed

34.

Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR (2005) A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 190:474–478PubMedCrossRef

35.

Lee SY, Coughlin B, Wolfe JM, Polino J, Blank FS, Smithline HA (2006) Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult emergency department patients. Emerg Radiol 12:150–157PubMedCrossRef

36.

Hill BC, Johnson SC, Owens EK, Gerber JL, Senagore AJ (2010) CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast. World J Surg 34:699–703PubMedCrossRef

37.

Harieaswar S, Rajesh A, Griffin Y, Tyagi R, Morgan B (2009) Routine use of positive oral contrast material is not required for oncology patients undergoing follow-up multidetector CT. Radiology 250:246–253PubMedCrossRef

38.

Sahani DV, Jhaveri KS, D'souza RV et al (2003) Evaluation of simethicone-coated cellulose as a negative oral contrast agent for abdominal CT. Acad Radiol 10:491–496PubMedCrossRef

39.

Winter TC, Ager JD, Nghiem HV, Hill RS, Harrison SD, Freeny PC (1996) Upper gastrointestinal tract and abdomen: water as an orally administered contrast agent for helical CT. Radiology 201:365–370PubMed

40.

Koo CW, Shah-Patel LR, Baer JW, Frager DH (2008) Cost-effectiveness and patient tolerance of low-attenuation oral contrast material: milk versus VoLumen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1307–1313PubMedCrossRef

41.

Walker D, Blaquiere RM (1995) Technical note: low density contrast in upper abdominal computed tomography. Br J Radiol 68:80–81PubMedCrossRef

42.

Naeger DM, Chang SD, Kolli P, Shah V, Huang W, Thoeni RF (2011) Neutral vs positive oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis with contrast-enhanced CT: sensitivity, specificity, reader confidence and interpretation time. Br J Radiol 84:418–426PubMedCrossRef

43.

Baert AL, Roex L, Marchal G, Hermans P, Dewilde D, Wilms G (1989) Computed tomography of the stomach with water as an oral contrast agent: technique and preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 13:633–636PubMedCrossRef

Title: Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review
Authors: Chau Hung Lee
Benjamin Haaland
Arul Earnest
Cher Heng Tan
Publication date: 01-09-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2860-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

Embolisation of prostatic arteries as treatment of moderate to severe lower urinary symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign hyperplasia: results of short- and mid-term follow-up

Diffusion-weighted MRI in pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer

Increase in left liver lobe function after preoperative right portal vein embolisation assessed with gadolinium-EOB-DTPA MRI

Surface–length index: a novel index for rapid detection of right ventricles with abnormal ejection fraction using cardiac MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

Differentiation of malignant and benign pulmonary nodules with first-pass dual-input perfusion CT