Search

Abstract Background In patients with clinically suspected appendicitis, imaging is needed to substantiate the clinical diagnosis. Imaging accuracy of ultrasonography (US) is suboptimal, while the most accurate technique (CT) is associated with cancer related deaths through exposure to ionizing radiation. MRI is a potential replacement, without associated ionizing radiation and no need for contrast medium administration. If MRI is proven to be sufficiently accurate, it could be introduced in the diagnostic pathway of patients with suspected appendicitis, increasing diagnostic accuracy and improving clinical outcomes, without the risk of radiation induced cancer or iodinated contrast medium-related drawbacks. The multicenter OPTIMAP study was designed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the general population. Methods/Design Eligible for this study are consecutive patients presenting with clinically suspected appendicitis at the emergency department in six centers. All patients will undergo imaging according to the Dutch guideline for acute appendicitis: initial ultrasonography in all and subsequent CT whenever US does not confirm acute appendicitis. Then MRI is performed in all patients, but the results are not used for patient management. A final diagnosis assigned by an expert panel, based on all available information including 3-months follow-up, except MRI findings, is used as the reference standard in estimating accuracy. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-observer agreement of MRI, and aim to include 230 patients. Patient acceptance and total imaging costs will also be evaluated. Discussion If MRI is found to be sufficiently accurate, it could replace CT in some or all patients. This will limit or obviate the ionizing radiation exposure associated risk of cancer induction and contrast medium induced nephropathy with CT, preventing the burden and the direct and indirect costs associated with treatment. Based on the high intrinsic contrast resolution of MRI, one might envision higher accuracy rates for MRI than for CT. If so, MRI could further decrease the number of unnecessary appendectomies and the number of missed appendicitis cases. Trial registration NTR2148

Abstract Background The acute abdomen is a frequent entity at the Emergency Department (ED), which usually needs rapid and accurate diagnostic work-up. Diagnostic work-up with imaging can consist of plain X-ray, ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and even diagnostic laparoscopy. However, no evidence-based guidelines exist in current literature. The actual diagnostic work-up of a patient with acute abdominal pain presenting to the ED varies greatly between hospitals and physicians. The OPTIMA study was designed to provide the evidence base for constructing an optimal diagnostic imaging guideline for patients with acute abdominal pain at the ED. Methods/design Thousand consecutive patients with abdominal pain > 2 hours and < 5 days will be enrolled in this multicentre trial. After clinical history, physical and laboratory examination all patients will undergo a diagnostic imaging protocol, consisting of plain X-ray (upright chest and supine abdomen), US and CT. The reference standard will be a post hoc assignment of the final diagnosis by an expert panel. The focus of the analysis will be on the added value of the imaging modalities over history and clinical examination, relative to the incremental costs. Discussion This study aims to provide the evidence base for the development of a diagnostic algorithm that can act as a guideline for ED physicians to evaluate patients with acute abdominal pain.

Background: In patients with clinically suspected appendicitis, imaging is needed to substantiate the clinical diagnosis. Imaging accuracy of ultrasonography (US) is suboptimal, while the most accurate technique (CT) is associated with cancer related deaths through exposure to ionizing radiation. MRI is a potential replacement, without associated ionizing radiation and no need for contrast medium administration. If MRI is proven to be sufficiently accurate, it could be introduced in the diagnostic pathway of patients with suspected appendicitis, increasing diagnostic accuracy and improving clinical outcomes, without the risk of radiation induced cancer or iodinated contrast medium-related drawbacks. The multicenter OPTIMAP study was designed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the general population. Methods/Design: Eligible for this study are consecutive patients presenting with clinically suspected appendicitis at the emergency department in six centers. All patients will undergo imaging according to the Dutch guideline for acute appendicitis: initial ultrasonography in all and subsequent CT whenever US does not confirm acute appendicitis. Then MRI is performed in all patients, but the results are not used for patient management. A final diagnosis assigned by an expert panel, based on all available information including 3-months follow-up, except MRI findings, is used as the reference standard in estimating accuracy. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-observer agreement of MRI, and aim to include 230 patients. Patient acceptance and total imaging costs will also be evaluated. Discussion: If MRI is found to be sufficiently accurate, it could replace CT in some or all patients. This will limit or obviate the ionizing radiation exposure associated risk of cancer induction and contrast medium induced nephropathy with CT, preventing the burden and the direct and indirect costs associated with treatment. Based on the high intrinsic contrast resolution of MRI, one might envision higher accuracy rates for MRI than for CT. If so, MRI could further decrease the number of unnecessary appendectomies and the number of missed appendicitis cases. Trial registration: NTR2148 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 62-year-old recreational cyclist presented with transient loss of consciousness and common electrocardiographic findings. Despite absence of left ventricular hypertrophy, multidisciplinary evaluation and a positive family history led to the diagnosis of non-classical Fabry disease. This case emphasizes the added value of multidisciplinary analysis of nonspecific findings to diagnose a rare disease., Competing Interests: The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Left atrial appendage (LAA) slow-flow may increase the risk of ischemic stroke. We studied LAA attenuation on cardiac computed tomography in patients with acute ischemic stroke., Methods and Results: We used data from a prospective cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing cardiac computed tomography during the acute stroke imaging protocol. We compared characteristics, functional outcome (modified Rankin scale: higher scores indicating worse outcome), stroke recurrence and major adverse cardiovascular events after 2-year follow-up between patients with LAA thrombus (filling defect<100 Hounsfield Unit (HU)), slow-flow (filling defect ≥100 HU) and normal filling. Of 421 patients, 31 (7%) had LAA thrombus, 69 (16%) slow-flow, and 321 (76%) normal filling. Patients with thrombus or slow-flow more often had known atrial fibrillation compared with normal filling (45%, 39%, and 9%, P <0.001). Patients with thrombus had higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale-scores compared with slow-flow and normal filling (18 [interquartile range, 9-22], 6 [interquartile range, 3-17], and 5 [interquartile range, 2-11], P <0.001). Compared with normal filling, there was no difference with slow-flow in functional outcome (median modified Rankin scale, 3 versus 2; acOR 0.8 [95% CI, 0.5-1.4]), stroke recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.3-1.9]) or major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.7-2.1]), while patients with thrombus had worse functional outcome (median modified Rankin scale, 6, acOR, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.5-7.4]). In cryptogenic stroke patients (n=156) slow-flow was associated with stroke recurrence (27% versus 6%, aHR, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.1-15.7])., Conclusions: Patients with slow-flow had similar characteristics to patients with thrombus, but had less severe strokes. Slow-flow was not significantly associated with functional outcome or major adverse cardiovascular events, but was associated with recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke.

Rationale: About one-third of ischaemic strokes are caused by cardioembolism, and a substantial proportion of cryptogenic strokes likely also originate from the heart or aortic arch. Early determination of aetiology is important to optimise management. Computed Tomography-angiography of the heart is emerging as an alternative to echocardiography to detect cardio-aortic sources of embolism in stroke patients, but its diagnostic yield in acute ischaemic stroke has not been thoroughly assessed. Hypothesis: We hypothesise that electrocardiography-gated computed tomography-angiography of the heart and aortic arch, acquired in the acute phase in patients with ischaemic stroke, has a higher diagnostic yield than transthoracic echocardiography as a first-line screening method for detection of cardio-aortic sources of embolism., Methods and Design: Mind the Heart is a single-centre prospective observational cohort study. We will include consecutive adult patients with acute ischaemic stroke who are potentially eligible for reperfusion therapy. Patients undergo non-electrocardiography-gated computed tomography-angiography of the aortic arch, cervical and intracranial arteries, directly followed by prospective sequential electrocardiography-gated cardiac computed tomography-angiography. Routine work-up for cardioembolism including 12-leads electrocardiography, Holter electrocardiography and transthoracic echocardiography is performed as soon as possible. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with a predefined high-risk cardio-aortic source of embolism on computed tomography-angiography versus transthoracic echocardiography in patients who underwent both investigations. Based on an expected 5% additional yield of computed tomography-angiography, a sample size of 450 patients is required., Conclusions: The Mind the Heart study will generate a reliable estimate of the diagnostic yield of echocardiography-gated cardio-aortic computed tomography-angiography performed in the acute phase of ischaemic stroke., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CBLMM has received research grants from CVON/Dutch Heart Foundation, European Commission, TWIN Foundation Dutch Health Evaluation program and Stryker (paid to institution). CBLMM, HAM and YBWEMR are shareholders of Nico.lab, a company that focuses on the use of artificial intelligence for medical image analysis. JMC reports grants from Medtronic. The other authors have no financial conflicts of interest., (© European Stroke Organisation 2020.)

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conditional CT strategy, i.e. CT if ultrasound findings are negative or inconclusive, with immediate CT strategy for patients with suspected appendicitis., Design: Subanalysis of a prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study., Method: Only data of patients with signs of appendicitis based on medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests were analyzed. All patients underwent both ultrasound and CT. Images of each were read by different observers who were blinded to the results of the other imaging modality. The observer then selected the most likely diagnosis. These diagnoses were compared with the reference standard, i.e. final diagnoses as assigned by an expert panel based on all available data and at least 6 months of follow-up., Results: A total of 422 patients with suspected appendicitis were included. In 251 patients the final diagnosis was acute appendicitis (59%). In 199 patients (47%), ultrasound findings were inconclusive or negative. Use of conditional CT strategy resulted in correctly identified number of correctly identified patients with appendicitis, i.e. 96% (95% CI 93-98), versus 95% identified by immediate CT (95% CI 91-97). However, conditional CT strategy resulted in more false positive diagnoses compared with immediate CT (39 versus 22), had an accompanying lower specificity of 77% (95% CI 70-83) versus 87% (95% CI 81-91), and a lower positive predictive value of 86% (95% CI 81-90) versus 92% (95% CI 87-95)., Conclusion: Use of a conditional CT strategy results in exactly the same number of patients with correctly identified acute appendicitis while halving the number of CTs needed. However, conditional strategy results in more false positive diagnoses.

Objective: To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain., Design: Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection., Setting: Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands., Participants: 1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock., Intervention: All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent., Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain., Results: 661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity., Conclusion: Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.