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。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在一大批急诊科(ED)连续患者中,比较HAv和非多普勒超声诊断急性胆囊炎的观察结果,并建立一种将HAv评估和非多普勒观察结果结合起来诊断急性胆囊炎的方法:一家机构在 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 8 月 31 日期间因急性胆囊炎接受胆囊(GB)超声检查(US)的连续急诊科患者均接受了胆囊直径、胆囊壁厚度、胆囊内容物、胆囊周围不规则集结和肝动脉收缩峰值速度(HAv)评估。对非多普勒观察结果进行评分和汇总。非多普勒风险分类基于与总分相关的急性胆囊炎发生率。评估了 HAv 分层对非多普勒风险类别中急性胆囊炎发病率的影响,当亚组的急性胆囊炎发病率发生变化时进行重新分组;重新分组建立了 HAv 调整风险模型。使用曲线下面积(AUC)计算方法比较了单个参数、非多普勒风险分类和HAv调整风险模型的急性胆囊炎诊断接收者-操作者曲线:在研究队列的 885 名患者中,117 人(13.2%)患有急性胆囊炎。使用胆囊胀大诊断急性胆囊炎的AUC(83.8%,P 结论:HAv对急性胆囊炎的诊断效果较好:HAv 对急性胆囊炎的诊断率低于其他评估方法。基于对每个非多普勒观察结果的总分进行分类的方案通过 HAv 评估得到了改善。这种风险分类方法将急诊患者的非多普勒和多普勒评估进行公式化整合,可让放射科医生仅根据声像图特征就能将疾病概率分为五个等级,从有效排除急性胆囊炎到大幅提高患者患病几率不等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Abdominal Radiology
Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
334
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信