Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Jan;39:60-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.01.015. Epub 2020 Jan 11.
Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED) and the source can be difficult to diagnose.
Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a new but validated modality with high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeds, especially in differentiating arterial from venous bleeding. With high reported validity of CTA, some studies have suggested its ability to better triage patients in the ED and impact ED workflow and resource utilization. We evaluated the use of CTA use an academic tertiary care center ED for GI bleeding.
Retrospective chart review of 1493 patient (2012-2015), one - way ANOVA, and one-tail t-test, found CTA is used significantly less (0.7%) compared to classical endoscopy (75.7%, p < .001), video capsule endoscopy (VCE)(4.8%, p < .001), tagged red blood cell scintigraphy(4.4%, p < .001), and traditional catheter-directed angiography(2.88%, p < .001). In our subset of 11 CTA cases, we found mean time (in hours) to CTA was faster than mean time to endoscopy, 31:47 [95% CI: -7:50-71:24] and 42:44 [95% CI: 18:27-67:01] respectively. The difference in means between time to CTA and time to endoscopy did not achieve statistical significance, 12:57 h [95% CI -18:51-44:45; p = .40].
We concluded that in light of its validation against these other diagnostic modalities, CTA may be underutilized in the care of patients with GI bleeding and should be studied further to study its impact on early risk stratification, treatment, and resource utilization.
胃肠道(GI)出血是急诊科(ED)常见的患者就诊原因,其病因难以诊断。
计算机断层血管造影(CTA)是一种新的但经过验证的方法,对胃肠道出血的诊断和治疗具有高灵敏度和特异性,特别是在区分动脉出血和静脉出血方面。由于 CTA 的高报告有效性,一些研究表明其能够更好地对 ED 中的患者进行分诊,并影响 ED 的工作流程和资源利用。我们评估了在学术性三级护理中心 ED 中使用 CTA 治疗胃肠道出血的情况。
对 1493 名患者(2012-2015 年)的回顾性图表审查、单因素方差分析和单尾 t 检验发现,与经典内镜(75.7%,p<0.001)、胶囊内镜(4.8%,p<0.001)、放射性核素标记红细胞闪烁扫描(4.4%,p<0.001)和传统导管定向血管造影(2.88%,p<0.001)相比,CTA 的使用率明显较低(0.7%)。在我们的 11 例 CTA 病例亚组中,我们发现 CTA 的平均时间(小时)比内镜的平均时间快,分别为 31:47[95%CI:-7:50-71:24]和 42:44[95%CI:18:27-67:01]。CTA 与内镜之间的时间差异没有达到统计学意义,12:57 h[95%CI-18:51-44:45;p=0.40]。
鉴于其与其他诊断方法的验证,CTA 在胃肠道出血患者的治疗中可能被低估,应该进一步研究其对早期风险分层、治疗和资源利用的影响。