RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Fifty percent of cranial CT scans performed achieve no benefit and entail risks. Our aim is to determine the yield of non-traumatic urgent cranial-CT and develop a pretest clinical probability scale approach. METHODS: Adult patients seen in our emergency department between 2017-2021 and referred for urgent cranial-CT for non-traumatic reasons were retrospectively recruited and randomly selected. Presenting complaint (PC), demographic variables, Relevant radiological findings (RRF) on the urgent cranial-CT and Relevant clinical-radiological findings (RCRF: admission need or RRF detection on the urgent cranial-CT or cranial CT/MRI in the following three months) were recruited. RESULTS: We recruited 702 patients, with median age 62 [47-76] years, 363 (51.7%) females. RCRF were observed in 404 (57.55%); of these, 352 (50.1%) required admission. RRF were detected in 190 (27.06%): 36 acute ischemic and 27 acute hemorrhagic lesions, 115 masses, 9 edema, and 27 hydrocephalus. Predictive PC for urgent cranial-CT were motor, speech, sensory deficits, sudden alteration of mental status, epileptic seizure, cognitive impairment, neurological symptoms in cancer patients, acute headache without a prior history and with meningeal signs; nausea, vomiting, or hypertensive crisis; visual deficits, and dizziness. This algorithm provided sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV, 95%CI in brackets) of 92.1% (89-94.5%), 27.5% (22.5-33.0%), 63.3% (59.2-67.2%), and 71.9% (62.7-80.0%), to diagnose RCRF, and 97.4% (93.4-99.1%), 21.3% (17.8-25.1%), 31.5% (27.7-35.4%), and 95.6% (90.1-98.6%), to diagnose RRF. In patients not requiring admission (n = 350), the NPV for RRF was 98.8% (93.6-100%); the negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (0.01-0.57), and sensitivity remained at 97.8% (82.2-99.9%). Applying it would have avoided performing 85/350 urgent cranial-CT (24.29%). To find one RRF, we would have gone from performing 7.8 (350/45) to 5.9 (265/45) CTs, failing to diagnose 1/45 (2.2%) RRF. CONCLUSIONS: This proposed clinical scale could potentially decrease 24% of urgent cranial-CT.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The number of non-traumatic urgent cranial computed tomography (NT-UCCT) is exponentially increasing but limited research has been conducted on the quality of clinical justification. Accordingly, we aimed (1) to assess how clinical information in the electronic NT-UCCT request agreed with that provided in the patient's emergency department discharge summary and (2) to analyze the potential effect of those discrepancies on the NT-UCCT overload. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients undergoing NT-UCCT in 2017-2021 were randomly selected for this retrospective research-board-approved study. Signs and symptoms (S/S) in electronic request and emergency department discharge summary, acute and relevant computed tomography (CT) findings (acute ischemia or hemorrhage, masses, brain edema, or previously undetected hydrocephalus), and final diagnosis at emergency department discharge summary were collected. Concordance between digital request and emergency department discharge summary and their association with both acute and relevant CT findings and final diagnosis were analyzed. RESULTS: We recruited 156 patients: 80 men; mean age, 55. Acute, relevant CT findings were detected in 28 cases (17.9%). The final diagnosis was neurological disease, non-neurological disease, and no definitive diagnosis in 46 (29.5%), 58 (37.2%), and 51 (32.7%) cases, respectively. Full agreement between the electronic request and emergency department discharge summary occurred in only 36 patients (23.1%). Motor deficit was the most frequent false positive electronic request S/S (18; 11.54%), having low positive predictive value (30.30%; 95%CI 15.59-48.71%) and worst association with acute relevant CT findings than when true positive (OR 2.54; 95%CI 0.04-6.21 vs. OR 6.26, 95%CI 2.21-17.78). Nausea/vomiting was the third most common false negative electronic request S/S (13; 10.26%) and reduced the likelihood of acute and relevant CT findings (OR 0.126; 95%CI 0.016-0.971; p = 0.020). False S/S in electronic request predominated in non-neurological diseases (50-60.2% vs. 33-39.8%; p = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Discrepancies between electronic request and emergency department discharge summary were observed in >75% of patients, leading to unnecessary NT-UCCT tests.