Diagnostic Utility of CT and Fluoroscopic Esophagography for Suspected Esophageal Perforation in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE. We evaluated the diagnostic utility of CT in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected esophageal perforation and assessed whether subsequent fluoroscopic esophagography is necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included consecutive adult patients presenting to an urban academic tertiary care ED from January 1, 2000, to August 31, 2017, who underwent CT and fluoroscopic esophagography within 1 calendar day (< 27 hours) of each other for suspected esophageal perforation. The use of oral or IV contrast material and the CT findings (i.e., pneumomediastinum, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, unexplained mediastinal fluid or stranding, esophageal wall air or frank esophageal wall disruption, or extraluminal oral contrast material) were documented. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Surgical or procedural intervention results or clinical follow-up results were the reference standard. RESULTS. One hundred three patients met the inclusion criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for diagnosing esophageal perforation were 100.0%, 79.8%, 32.1%, and 100.0%, respectively, with CT and 77.8%, 98.9%, 87.5%, and 97.9% with fluoroscopic esophagography. Combining CT and fluoroscopic esophagography did not improve sensitivity, specificity, PPV, or NPV relative to using CT alone. The true-positive esophageal perforation rate was 8.7% for CT and 6.8% for fluoroscopic esophagography. When CT showed only pneumomediastinum ( n = 51) or no pneumomediastinum ( n = 14), the NPV of CT was 100.0%. CT with oral contrast material had a PPV of 38.5%, whereas CT without oral contrast material had a PPV of 26.7%. CONCLUSION. CT has a high NPV similar to that of fluoroscopic esophagography and has greater sensitivity than fluoroscopic esophagography for diagnosing suspected esophageal perforation. Fluoroscopic esophagrams do not provide additional information that changes clinical management beyond the information that CT provides. In ED patients with suspected esophageal perforation, CT with oral contrast material should be considered the initial imaging examination and can obviate fluoroscopic esophagography.