We have located links that may give you full text access.
Contribution of ultrasonography and cholescintigraphy to the diagnosis of acute acalculous cholecystitis in intensive care unit patients.
Intensive Care Medicine 2000 November
OBJECTIVES: To assess the respective value of ultrasonography (US) and morphine cholescintigraphy (MC) in the diagnosis of acute acalculous cholecystitis (AAC).
DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study in an intensive care unit of a university hospital.
PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Twenty-eight patients with clinically and biologically suspected of AAC. US was performed at the bedside and less than 12 h later MC. US was considered positive if three major criteria were present: wall thickness greater than 4 mm, hydrops, sludge; MC results were regarded as positive if the gallbladder could not be visualized. These latter patients underwent cholecystectomy and the diagnosis of AAC was confirmed through histopathological study.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sensitivity of US and MC, respectively, was 50% and 67%, specificity 94% and 100%, positive predictive value 86% and 100%, negative predictive value 71% and 80%, and accuracy 75% and 86%. The correlation between US and MC findings was 71%, with chi = 0.31. By Bayesian analysis the probability of disease if the MC finding was positive was 100% regardless of US results. A positive US finding was associated with a 86% probability of disease, but with a probability of only 66% in case of negative MC results. MC is thus superior to US for confirming AAC in selected critically ill patients. Nevertheless, US is an easy, noninvasive, and effective method of bedside screening. The combination of the two imaging tests improves diagnostic accuracy and reduces false-positive and false-negative rates. Poor agreement between the two tests leads to better diagnostic complementarity.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study in an intensive care unit of a university hospital.
PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Twenty-eight patients with clinically and biologically suspected of AAC. US was performed at the bedside and less than 12 h later MC. US was considered positive if three major criteria were present: wall thickness greater than 4 mm, hydrops, sludge; MC results were regarded as positive if the gallbladder could not be visualized. These latter patients underwent cholecystectomy and the diagnosis of AAC was confirmed through histopathological study.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sensitivity of US and MC, respectively, was 50% and 67%, specificity 94% and 100%, positive predictive value 86% and 100%, negative predictive value 71% and 80%, and accuracy 75% and 86%. The correlation between US and MC findings was 71%, with chi = 0.31. By Bayesian analysis the probability of disease if the MC finding was positive was 100% regardless of US results. A positive US finding was associated with a 86% probability of disease, but with a probability of only 66% in case of negative MC results. MC is thus superior to US for confirming AAC in selected critically ill patients. Nevertheless, US is an easy, noninvasive, and effective method of bedside screening. The combination of the two imaging tests improves diagnostic accuracy and reduces false-positive and false-negative rates. Poor agreement between the two tests leads to better diagnostic complementarity.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app