Body computed tomography in sepsis: predictors of CT findings and patient outcomes in a retrospective medical ICU cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate focus identification and control. However, international sepsis guidelines do not provide information on imaging choice. PURPOSE: To identify predictors of CT findings and patient outcomes in a population of septic patients from a medical ICU. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A full-text search in the radiological information system (RIS) retrieved 227 body CT examinations conducted to identify infectious sources in 2018. CT reports were categorized according to identified foci and their diagnostic certainty. Diagnostic accuracy of CT was compared to microbiological results. Clinical and laboratory information was gathered. Statistical analysis was performed using nonparametric tests and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: CT revealed more positive infectious foci 52.4% (n = 191/227) than microbiological tests 39.3% (n = 79/201). There were no significant differences between focus-positive CT scans with regard to positive microbiological testing (p = 0.32). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were slightly but nonsignificantly higher in patients with a focus-positive CT, odds ratio (OR) = 0.999 (95% CI 0.997-1.001) with p = 0.52. Among C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and leukocytes, in focus-positive versus focus-negative CT scans, CRP showed a minor but statistically significant elevation in the group with focus-positive CT scans (OR = 1.004, 95% CI = 1.000-1.007, p = 0.04). No significant association was found for PCT (OR = 1.007, 95% CI = 0.991-1.023; p = 0.40) or leukocytes (OR = 1.003, 95% CI = 0.970-1.038; p = 0.85). In 33.5% (n = 76/227) of cases, the CT findings had at least one therapeutic consequence. In 81.6% (n = 62/76), the CT findings resulted in one consequence, in 14.5% (n = 11/76) in two consequences, and in 3.9% (n = 3/76) in three consequences. There was no significant association between focus-positive CT scans and mortality (p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: In this population of septic patients in medical intensive care, microbiological analysis complemented CT findings. Both clinical and laboratory parameters were not predictive of CT findings. While therapeutic consequences of CT findings in this study population underline the role of CT for decision making in septic patients, CT findings do not predict patient outcomes in this retrospective analysis.

Missed Radiological Diagnosis of Otosclerosis in High-Resolution Computed Tomography of the Temporal Bone-Retrospective Analysis of Imaging, Radiological Reports, and Request Forms.

Objectives: Several studies reported low detection rates of otosclerosis in high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), especially when the scans were reviewed by non-specialized general radiologists. In the present study, we conducted a retrospective review of the detection of otosclerosis in HRCT by general radiologists and the impact of inadequately filled radiological request forms on the detection rate. Methods: Retrospective analysis of hospital records, HRCT reports, and radiological referral notes of 40 patients who underwent stapedotomy surgery for otosclerosis. HRCT imaging data sets were retrospectively reviewed by a blinded experienced neuroradiologist, whose reading served as the gold standard. Results: General radiologists reading HRCT scans had an overall detection rate of otosclerosis of 36.1% in this cohort (13 of 36 available HRCT reports). The neuroradiologist had a much higher detection rate of 82.5% (33 of 40 cases). Interobserver agreement between the general radiologists and the subspecialist neuroradiologist was poor (Cohen's kappa κ = 0.26). General radiologists missed the diagnosis in 15 of the 33 CT-positive scans, corresponding to a missed diagnosis rate of 45.4%. There was a highly significant association between a missed diagnosis and the lack of an explicitly mentioned clinical suspicion of otosclerosis in the request forms (Pearson's chi-squared test, p < 0.005). Conclusion: The diagnosis of otosclerosis is frequently missed by radiologists on HRCT scans of the temporal bone in a clinical setting. Possible reasons include a relative lack of experience of general radiologists with temporal bone imaging as well as the failure of clinicians to unambiguously communicate their suspicion of otosclerosis.

Computed tomography for detection of septic foci: Retrospective analysis of patients presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is defined as organ dysfunction due to severe infection. Septic patients face a significant mortality risk. Thus, timely recognition with prompt focus identification and control are essential. This study aims to determine the current role of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnostic workup of septic patients. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 357 patients in the emergency department (ED) of a large university center with suspected sepsis in a two-year period. A total of 132 patients underwent CT scanning within 72 h of admission. Patients were characterized by clinical and laboratory findings. CT reports were categorized and matched with clinical data. RESULTS: Of 357 ED patients with suspected sepsis, 37.0% (132/357) underwent CT imaging within 72 h. The most commonly identified septic foci in CT were chest 38.6% (49/127), abdomen 22.0% (28/127) and genitourinary tract 20.5% (26/127) in descending order. The focus detection rate was 76.5% per patient with a concurrent number-needed-to-scan of 1.31. Contrast medium administration in CT did not improve focus detection rate (p = 0.631) or diagnostic confidence in this patient population (p = 0.432). CT had a positive predictive value of 81.82% (CI 76.31 to 86.28%) in predicting the focus of the discharge diagnosis. Follow-up imaging in patients with unclear focus reveals a new focus in 39.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation of the role of CT in ED patients with suspected sepsis indicated a high positive predictive value for CT with regard to the discharge diagnosis. Repeat imaging may help identify further septic foci in a subgroup with persistently unclear focus. Use of contrast medium seems less relevant for focus detection than expected, as it did not increase diagnostic confidence.

The role of body computed tomography in hospitalized patients with obscure infection: Retrospective consecutive cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with severe infection or sepsis require fast identification of the focus and prompt eradication. This study aims at investigating the role of body computed tomography (CT) and identifying outcome predictors in a general ward setting of patients with obscure infection. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 196 consecutive body CTs acquired in 179 patients with obscure infection, i.e. severe infection or sepsis from general wards with unclear focus, over 12-months in the year 2018. Reports were extracted using a full-text search in the radiological information system (RIS) of a large university medical center. CT reports were classified according to diagnostic confidence of the reader (i.e. certain, likely, possible, no focus), and correlated with clinical and laboratory parameters. The discharge diagnosis was set as the diagnostic reference standard. Contingency tables were prepared for statistical analysis with Chi-squared test amongst other analyses and the calculation of AUC statistics. RESULTS: In 133 out of 196 (67.9 %) body CTs from general wards with severe infection or sepsis, body CT identified an infectious focus. 90 % of the infections were located in the chest, abdomen, and genitourinary tract, in descending order. In 76.5 % (150 of 196) of examinations, CT correctly predicted the final infectious source. The positive predictive value (PPV) of a CT-detected focus was 84.2 % (95 % CI 79.0%-88.3%). A high diagnostic confidence of the reader resulted in a PPV of 96.4 % (95 % CI 87.4%-99.1%) while a low confidence resulted in a PPV of 63.3 % (95 % CI 48.2%-76.3%). CONCLUSION: In patients with obscure infection treated in general wards, body CT detects the infectious source with a high positive predictive value. Focus detection accuracy highly depends on the diagnostic confidence of the CT reader.