Is Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Redundant for Suspected Intracranial Infection in the Emergency Setting?

OBJECTIVE

There are currently no guidelines for when to use intravenous contrast with head computed tomography (CT) when there is suspected acute intracranial infection. The purpose of our study was to determine the proportion of cases with enhancing findings on CT that also have conspicuous correlating associated findings on noncontrast CT, which would have on their own merited further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging, the criterion standard for evaluating central nervous system pathology.

METHODS

A retrospective keyword search of the history and clinical information fields in radiology reports for CT examinations of the head without and with contrast from the period January 1, 2004, to October 31, 2021 was performed. Patients with prior head surgery or a history of cancer were excluded. For remaining patients, the noncontrast CT was reviewed for vasogenic edema or mass effect as markers of a possible acute infection, and the presence of background hypodense white matter changes was noted and graded as either absent, mild/scattered, or confluent. Subsequently, the companion contrast-enhanced CT was reviewed for an enhancing abnormality. Chart review was performed to confirm that an infectious process was the ultimate clinical diagnosis in patients with enhancing abnormalities.

RESULTS

Of 343 patients meeting study inclusion/exclusion criteria, 39 had acute infections with an enhancing abnormality on CT (prevalence 11.3%). Thirty-two of these 39 patients also had correlative findings on the noncontrast CT. Noncontrast CT had a positive predictive value of 100%, negative predictive value of 97.7%, sensitivity of 82.1%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 98.0% for detecting markers (vasogenic edema and/or mass effect) associated with an enhancing abnormality. Vasogenic edema was the most common noncontrast CT finding in patients who had an infectious enhancing lesion (32 of 39), followed by mass effect (22 of 39). The 7 cases where the acute infection was occult on noncontrast CT were due to leptomeningitis (n = 3), confluent background white matter changes masking the vasogenic edema surrounding intra-axial lesions (n = 3), and a small 0.5 cm extra-axial abscess.

CONCLUSIONS

Most acute intracranial infections with an enhancing CT finding also have a correlative conspicuous noncontrast finding that on its own would merit further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging, the criterion standard for investigating central nervous system disease, and therefore, in the setting of suspected intracranial infection, contrast-enhanced CT is redundant in most cases. Contrast-enhanced CT primarily provides diagnostic benefit in patients with confluent background white matter changes that may mask vasogenic edema on noncontrast CT.