Lea Chen, Anika G Patel, Nirvikar Dahiya, Scott W Young, J Scott Kriegshauser, Nan Zhang, Maitray D Patel
{"title":"预测急性胆囊炎的肝动脉收缩峰值速度与非多普勒超声观察结果的比较:诊断性能及对风险分类方法的影响。","authors":"Lea Chen, Anika G Patel, Nirvikar Dahiya, Scott W Young, J Scott Kriegshauser, Nan Zhang, Maitray D Patel","doi":"10.1007/s00261-024-04692-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Compare HAv to non-Doppler ultrasound observations for diagnosing acute cholecystitis in a large consecutive cohort of emergency department (ED) patients and establish a method to combine HAv assessment with non-Doppler observations for diagnosing acute cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive ED patients at one institution undergoing gallbladder (GB) ultrasound (US) for acute cholecystitis between 1/1/2020 and 8/31/2022 had assessments of GB diameter, GB wall thickness, GB contents, pericholecystic irregular collection, and hepatic artery peak systolic velocity (HAv). The non-Doppler observations were scored and summed. Non-Doppler risk categorization was based on rate of acute cholecystitis associated with summed scores. The impact of HAv stratification on the rate of acute cholecystitis in the non-Doppler risk categories was evaluated, with regrouping when subgroups had changes in the acute cholecystitis rate; the regrouping established the HAv-adjusted risk model. Receiver-operator curves for acute cholecystitis diagnosis for individual parameters, the non-Doppler risk categorization, and the HAv-adjusted risk model were compared using area-under-curve (AUC) calculations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 885 patients in the study cohort, 117 (13.2%) had acute cholecystitis. The AUC for diagnosing acute cholecystitis using GB distention (83.8%, p < 0.001), GB wall thickness (79.1%, p < 0.001), and GB contents (75.0%, p 0.02) were higher than HAv (66.3%). HAv assessment adjusted risk for 195 patients. The non-Doppler risk categorization and the HAv-adjusted risk model had the same sensitivity (84.6%) and specificity (85.2%) for diagnosing acute cholecystitis, but the HAv-adjusted risk model showed higher AUC (91.3%, p 0.03) due to increased ability to exclude acute cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The diagnostic performance of HAv for acute cholecystitis was lower than other assessments. A categorization scheme based on summed points assigned to each non-Doppler observation was improved with HAv assessment. This risk categorization approach using formulaic integration of non-Doppler and Doppler assessments on ED patients allows radiologists to convey one of five levels of disease probability based solely on sonographic features ranging from effectively excluding acute cholecystitis to substantially elevating the chance the patient has the condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hepatic artery peak systolic velocity compared to non-Doppler ultrasound observations for predicting acute cholecystitis: diagnostic performance and impact on a risk categorization approach.\",\"authors\":\"Lea Chen, Anika G Patel, Nirvikar Dahiya, Scott W Young, J Scott Kriegshauser, Nan Zhang, Maitray D Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00261-024-04692-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Compare HAv to non-Doppler ultrasound observations for diagnosing acute cholecystitis in a large consecutive cohort of emergency department (ED) patients and establish a method to combine HAv assessment with non-Doppler observations for diagnosing acute cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive ED patients at one institution undergoing gallbladder (GB) ultrasound (US) for acute cholecystitis between 1/1/2020 and 8/31/2022 had assessments of GB diameter, GB wall thickness, GB contents, pericholecystic irregular collection, and hepatic artery peak systolic velocity (HAv). The non-Doppler observations were scored and summed. Non-Doppler risk categorization was based on rate of acute cholecystitis associated with summed scores. The impact of HAv stratification on the rate of acute cholecystitis in the non-Doppler risk categories was evaluated, with regrouping when subgroups had changes in the acute cholecystitis rate; the regrouping established the HAv-adjusted risk model. Receiver-operator curves for acute cholecystitis diagnosis for individual parameters, the non-Doppler risk categorization, and the HAv-adjusted risk model were compared using area-under-curve (AUC) calculations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 885 patients in the study cohort, 117 (13.2%) had acute cholecystitis. The AUC for diagnosing acute cholecystitis using GB distention (83.8%, p < 0.001), GB wall thickness (79.1%, p < 0.001), and GB contents (75.0%, p 0.02) were higher than HAv (66.3%). HAv assessment adjusted risk for 195 patients. The non-Doppler risk categorization and the HAv-adjusted risk model had the same sensitivity (84.6%) and specificity (85.2%) for diagnosing acute cholecystitis, but the HAv-adjusted risk model showed higher AUC (91.3%, p 0.03) due to increased ability to exclude acute cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The diagnostic performance of HAv for acute cholecystitis was lower than other assessments. A categorization scheme based on summed points assigned to each non-Doppler observation was improved with HAv assessment. This risk categorization approach using formulaic integration of non-Doppler and Doppler assessments on ED patients allows radiologists to convey one of five levels of disease probability based solely on sonographic features ranging from effectively excluding acute cholecystitis to substantially elevating the chance the patient has the condition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Abdominal Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Abdominal Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04692-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04692-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hepatic artery peak systolic velocity compared to non-Doppler ultrasound observations for predicting acute cholecystitis: diagnostic performance and impact on a risk categorization approach.
Purpose: Compare HAv to non-Doppler ultrasound observations for diagnosing acute cholecystitis in a large consecutive cohort of emergency department (ED) patients and establish a method to combine HAv assessment with non-Doppler observations for diagnosing acute cholecystitis.
Methods: Consecutive ED patients at one institution undergoing gallbladder (GB) ultrasound (US) for acute cholecystitis between 1/1/2020 and 8/31/2022 had assessments of GB diameter, GB wall thickness, GB contents, pericholecystic irregular collection, and hepatic artery peak systolic velocity (HAv). The non-Doppler observations were scored and summed. Non-Doppler risk categorization was based on rate of acute cholecystitis associated with summed scores. The impact of HAv stratification on the rate of acute cholecystitis in the non-Doppler risk categories was evaluated, with regrouping when subgroups had changes in the acute cholecystitis rate; the regrouping established the HAv-adjusted risk model. Receiver-operator curves for acute cholecystitis diagnosis for individual parameters, the non-Doppler risk categorization, and the HAv-adjusted risk model were compared using area-under-curve (AUC) calculations.
Results: Of the 885 patients in the study cohort, 117 (13.2%) had acute cholecystitis. The AUC for diagnosing acute cholecystitis using GB distention (83.8%, p < 0.001), GB wall thickness (79.1%, p < 0.001), and GB contents (75.0%, p 0.02) were higher than HAv (66.3%). HAv assessment adjusted risk for 195 patients. The non-Doppler risk categorization and the HAv-adjusted risk model had the same sensitivity (84.6%) and specificity (85.2%) for diagnosing acute cholecystitis, but the HAv-adjusted risk model showed higher AUC (91.3%, p 0.03) due to increased ability to exclude acute cholecystitis.
Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of HAv for acute cholecystitis was lower than other assessments. A categorization scheme based on summed points assigned to each non-Doppler observation was improved with HAv assessment. This risk categorization approach using formulaic integration of non-Doppler and Doppler assessments on ED patients allows radiologists to convey one of five levels of disease probability based solely on sonographic features ranging from effectively excluding acute cholecystitis to substantially elevating the chance the patient has the condition.
期刊介绍:
Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section.
Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology:
· Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR)
· Published in Cooperation with:
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR)
European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)
Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR)
· Efficient handling and Expeditious review
· Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style
· Global readership
· Readers can earn CME credits