primum non nocere v2.pptx (skrivskyddad) · primum non nocere use of radiology – danger/benefit...

1

Primum Non Nocere Use of Radiology – Danger/Benefit

Bertil Leidner, MD

Background/Disclaimer

§  Consultant, Dept of Radiology, Karolinska, Huddinge 1998 – 2014 » Emergency radiology » CT » Trauma CT development 1990

§  Free-lance consultant 2014 - present » Swedish radiology dept / Norrköping » Teleradiology – TMC

– On call emergency radiology - Sydney

2

General aspects - Inspiration och source 

§  Läkartidningens symposium 15/3 - 17 §  Diagnostiska fel och misstag

»  Åke Andrén Sandberg, Rita Fernholm, Pelle Gustafson, Anders v Heijne, Charlotta Nelsson

Outline I

§  General aspects on mistakes §  Radiology – cost/benefit §  How to avoid mistakes/misdiagnosis

» Focus Teamwork Radiology - Surgery

3

Sannolikhet för att göra allt rätt

●  5 steg i processen, vi gör rätt 99 gånger av 100 »  = 5 patienter av 100 får inte

rätt behandling ●  5 steg i processen,

vi gör rätt 95 gånger av 100 »  = 23 patienter av 100 får

inte rätt behandling

●  25 steg i processen, vi gör rätt 99 gånger av 100 »  = 22 patienter av 100 får

inte rätt behandling ●  25 steg i processen,

vi gör rätt 95 gånger av 100 »  = 72 patienter av 100 får

inte rätt behandling

Röntgenundersökning - 10 steg §  Patient - klinisk undersökning §  Röntgenremiss

»  Val av klinisk information & frågeställning »  Val av undersökning (metod)

§  Prioritering & bokning »  Metodval, tidsprio

§  (DT-) undersökning »  Hur struktureras den? Antal faser – N, artär, ven, sen

§  Granskning §  Bedömning/ slutsats/diagnos §  Kommunikation av svar radiolog - kirurg

4

Hur begränsar vi felen?

●  Patient - klinisk undersökning

●  Röntgenremiss »  Val av klinisk information &

frågeställning »  Val av undersökning

(metod) ●  Prioritering & bokning

»  Metodval, tidsprio ●  (DT-) undersökning

»  Hur struktureras den? Antal faser – N, artär, ven, sen

●  Granskning ●  Bedömning/ slutsats/

diagnos ●  Kommunikation av svar

radiolog - kirurg

●  10 steg; rätt 99/100 ggr »  10/100 pat får inte optimal

bed ●  Hur begränsar vi ”felen”? ● TEAMWORK ● Lagertänk

Fallskärmar för varandras misstag

Kommunikation

§  Svag länk » Kunskapsöverföring mellan specialiteter » Patientöverföringar mellan kliniker och sjukhus

§  Strukturerat arbetssätt »  tydlig metodik för samtalsprocess » värdering av vitala funktioner » standardiserad kommunikation

– Checklistor

5

Vanliga radiologiska fel

§  Glömmer differentialdiagnoser §  SOS – Satisfaction of Search

» Finn Fem Fel §  Negationer dränker patologin

» Strukturerad granskning & svar » Top-bottom granskning » SKA INTE medföra ett top-bottom SVAR

– Fokus på patologi – summariska negationer – Sammanfattning & slutsats ska finnas

Teamwork – kommunikation kirurg - radiolog

§  Klinisk bild vs radiologiskt fynd §  Viktigaste kontrollfrågorna

» Vad kan det vara annars? » Vad talar emot diagnosen? » Mer än ett problem?

§  Teamwork » Kommunicera personligen » Verbalisera / Tänk högt

6

Varning! Warning!

Outline II §  Radiology – How to think & cost/benefit §  Choice of modality

»  CT vs US §  ”Evidence based" & fast technical development in radiology/CT §  CT – the diagnostic mainstay & work horse

»  Danger of contrast »  Danger of radiation

»  Danger of non-examination? §  Risk evaluation

»  Age »  Earlier and present disease history?

§  Focus: Trauma-CT - a cost-benefit-analysis

7

CT or US

§  53 y o man §  Abdominal pain 2

days, right flank §  Fever 38.4, LPK 16.4 §  Tender dorsal over

kidney + right flank + pain in the scrotum

§  Cholecytistis? Pyelitis? Appendicitis? Rt testis?

§  CT or US? §  CT

§  Radiation + iv contrast

§  Age

§  Your choice?

Aortic ocklusion

8

CT vs US

§ What modality/exam to use? §  Small spectrum diagnostics - US §  Young & Slim à US §  Old & renal failure à US §  Broad spectrum diagnostics - CT

» When in doubt à CT

CT optimized

§ Radiation §  iv contrast (iodine)

9

Aortic ocklusion

NO contrast = NO diagnosis!

CT & Evidence based radiology

§  1992 spiral 60 images/minute §  2005 MDCT 64 channels 9.000 images/minute

§  2010 320 channels 45.000

§  Abdomen in a second scan

§  1992 à today = x1000 images capacity

§  Scientific articles – to form evidence base »  What CT capacity in the articles; what do YOU have ??!

10

The Strength of CT

§  Less risk for mistakes cf US §  Covers the whole abdomen

» NOT ”FA –focused assessment” » Lateral viewing – find 5 errors/diagnosis

§  Comparison to previous exams §  Full value second reading is always possible

New CT Paradigm

Virtual & Functional

Laparoscopy

§  Thin slices – higher diagnostic quality

§  Multi Planar Reformat - MPR §  3D - Volume Rendering Technique -

VRT

11

64 ch abd

12

Focus: The acute abdomen

§  Ileus §  Ischemia §  Bleeds

Female 57 y - MS

§  2 days abdominal pain, vomiting, peritoneal status

13

CT @ 24 h

Necrotic intestine

14

GI ischemia

MDCT / CTA in ischemia

§  Gold standard §  Sensitivity 82% - 96%; specificity 94% §  Reginelli et al.: Mesenteric ischemia: the importance of differential diagnosis

for the surgeon. BMC Surgery 2013 13(Suppl 2):S51.

15

Female 66 y o

§  Diarrhea, vomiting + abd pain 2 days §  KOL, longstanding Mb Crohn

§  Exam without iv contrast » due to non-defined ”allergy towards

contrast media”

16

§  Dilated small bowel loops; distal obstruction?

§  Oedema in mesentary & distal ileal wall – inflammmatory reaction??

§  Air in intrahepatic bilary ducts or in peripheral portal branches but not in central porta. No air in bowel walls

§  Status post ERCP/papillotomy? §  Follow-thru exam started……

12 h later 2nd exam + iv contrast

17

2nd radiology report (iv contrast +)

§  Thrombus in proximal a mes sup & coeliac trunc.

§  Air in portal vein + intestinal wall §  Patchy hepatic necrosis §  Acute laparotomy reveals

» no pulsation in these arteries » extensive tissue necrosis

§  No further actions. » Patient dies in ICU

Ischemia

§  85 year old man §  Advanced cardiovascular disease,

claudicatio §  5 h severe abd pain w acute onset, no

peritonitis §  Lactate up 6.8

18

SMA– ocklusion

Ischemia

19

Discussion

§  Limits of non-contrast exam » Diagnostic hesitation, delay!

§  Make it easy to diagnose » = iv contrast ! » Even the super stressed specialist » & least experienced resident

Bleeds (GI)

20

Acute Bleed - Clincial Workup

§  Stabilize the patient » stabilization of BP/pulse »  restoration of volume before diagnostics » Most complications from hypo-perfusion

Sensitivity & specificity CTA

§  (Problem of intermittent bleeding) §  Metaanalys 1995-2009

•  Wu et al, World J Gastroenterol, Aug 2010

§  9 studies, 198 patients §  CTA acute GI bleeding

» Ref standard: endoskopy, angio or surgery §  Sens 89%, specif 85% §  My comment:

» Better performance w MDCT 64 ch+

21

Bleeding rate for detection

§  RBC scintigraphy 0.1- 0.2 ml/min §  Convent mesent angio 0.5 ml/min

§  CTA 0.2-0.3 ml/min

§  Kuhle et al Radiology 2003 228:743-752 (CTA -swine model)

70 y old woman

§  3 months earlier » Small bowel GIST tumor with intussuception

(invagination) §  Now: Abd pain, dark vomiting, diarrhea with

fresh blood §  Clinically unstable – Do we dare do CT? §  à Multiphase CT

22

Native – non-contrast

(Late) Arterial

23

24

CTA vs Angio §  Unstable patient?

» CT-angio? » Angio?

§  CT + » During preparation time for angio » more sensitive for bleed »  roadmap for intervention

– Saves intervention time

§  CT - » CT + intervention à More iv contrast (?)

Cost/Benefit Contrast & Radiation vs Diagnosis

§  Iv contrast § Old age

§  Radiation » Young & Pregnancy

25

Questions/problems iv contrast

§  Breast feeding – OK §  Allergy

» Premedicate »  If severe - anestesiologist present

Renal function & iv contrast

§  Older patients » Higher risk for premorbid renal dysfuncition

§  Cost-benefit analysis » severity of clinical situation

§  Don´t save the kidneys and loose the patient

26

Case discussion: iv contrast complication

32 year old female; 4 h post partum

§  Abdominal pain §  Tachycardia, low blood pressure §  P-krea 150 §  DIC injury to liver + kidneys §  CT PROTOCOL

» 160 ml Visipaque 320 @ 6 ml/s §  + pending intervention w contrast

27

Roadmap

28

Follow up

§  Dialysis 6 weeks » Anuria 2 weeks » Polyuria phase

§  Rescanned twice w iv contrast » abscess?

§  Judged to regain renal & liver function §  2 years later – limited renal impairment

» Creatinine 120

Discussion

§  Amount of iv contrast high » Lower dose vs find the bleeding source

§  Several instances of iv contrast use §  Lifesaving procedures §  BOTTOM LINE

» A woman has got to do, what a woman has to do

29

Cost/Benefit Contrast & Radiation vs Diagnosis

§  Radiation » Young & Pregnancy

§  iv- contrast

Cost: Radiation

§  Radiation Dose §  Adult medium size

» 6-7 mSv » 2 years Swedish background radiation

§  5 mo child » 0,5 mSv

30

CT Abdomen radiation

§  Continous radiation reduction with technology

§ New image reconstruction – iterative recons » 50 kg female » 1.5 – 2 mSv » Compare to lumbar spine X-ray

Radiation §  Cost vs Benefit §  Old vs young §  Risk comparison -- CT abd 10 mSv

» 2 months work travel Stockholm-Gävle (before highway north of Uppsala)

» 500 cigarettes » 5 months construction work

§  What happens if you miss a serious diagnosis?

31

Pregnancy & radiation

§  < 10 days » Any damage à abortion

§  week 3-8 » border dose: 100-200 mGy

§  week 8-15 » border dose 200 mGy

§  Trauma CT Huddinge » 25 mGy

Approximate fetal doses Examination Mean dose

(mGy) Maximum dose (mGy)

Abdomen 1,5 5 Pelvis (one image) 0,5 1 Abdomen CT 15 35 Pelvis CT (low dose) 5 10 Pelvis CT (normal dose) 12 32 Chest CT 0,02 <0,1 Head CT ~0 ~0

Theoretical approximate fetal doses calculated from non pregnant patients at Karolinska University Hospital

Courtesy Physicist Jon Holm, GE

32

Probability of bearing healthy child

Dose to conceptus (mGy)

Probability of no malformation

Probability of no cancer (0-19yrs)

0 97 99,7 1 97 99,7 5 97 99,7 10 97 99,6 50 97 99,4 100 97 99,1 >100 Possible

Courtesy Physicist Jon Holm, GE

33

Primum Non Nocere Select the RIGHT patient to

CT

§ Clinical selection – the ill patient §  Uncertain diagnosis

» This patient is seriously ill, but I don´t know why » Differential diagnostics

§  Preoperative mapping »  Ileus - cause & location » Bleed roadmap

Which patient should NOT go to CT??

§  When you are confident in your clinical diagnosis

§  No serious clinical suspicion of disease » Rule out pathology » Lack of hospital beds !?

§  Clinical evalutation » Could you ask an older and/or wiser clinical

colleague for advice?

34

For the radiologist: Don´t forget

§  YOU have to make a medical decision »  If there is an indication to scan » How to structure and individualize the CT exam

– radiation & contrast

§  No patient comes to radiology in order to » get a low dose of radiation » get a low dose of contrast media

§  The patient comes for a diagnostic exam

Take home messages

§ Diagnosis of the ill patient is the goal !!

§ Make the full diagnosis » one stop shop

§ Make the diagnosis max visible » For the SSS (Super Stressed Specialist)

» For the junior doc

35

Trauma Radiology before CT Surgeon´s Viewpoint

X-ray = X-time

What injuries?

Image from trauma.org

36

Trauma CT

§  iv contrast (iodine) § Radiation

37

Contrast media reactions » Adverse reactions

•  Allergic reactions

– Anaphylaxic deaths •  Low osmolar = 1/500.000 (1990-1994)

» CIN 5 - 11% –  (Contrast Induced Nephropathy) (S-Cr 25%+ or 44 µmol/L +)

– 6.6% CIN, 1 pat dialysis; no mortality increase •  1184 trauma pat (ISS 16; diabetic 8%)

– 5% CIN, all recovered in 5 days

•  – angioembo 248 ml 320/350 mgI/ml - 100 hypotensive trauma pat –  11% CIN; 1% severe (outpatients) Idée JM, Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Jun;19(3)

Lasser EC, Radiology. 1997 Jun;203(3) Matsushima K, J Trauma. 2011 Feb;70(2) Vassiliu P, J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Feb;194(2) Mitchell AM, Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Jan;5(1)

Contrast media reactions §  CIN: CT with contrast vs no contrast exposure

» 3 studies à no significant difference – even in patients with eGFR < 30

» C+ 4% vs C- 5% - CIN in traumapatients » no difference in rates of acute kidney injury (AKI)

– meta-analysis 26 000 patients

– matched (propensity score) 12 508 patients

Colling KP, J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Aug;77(2) McDonald JS, Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1) McDonald JS, Radiology. 2014 Apr;271(1)

38

Renal function & iv contrast

§  Renal insuffiency » Calculate GFR » Omnivis – re: achieve a diagnostic

examination » kV adjustment

– 80 -100 kV

§  Cost-benefit analysis » severity of clinical situation

§  Don´t save the kidneys and loose the patient

39

Dose

● CT Dose » head 2.0 mSv (1,8-2,4) » c-spine 3.5 mSv (0,8-1,8) » body 9.0 mSv (7,6-18,4)

●  Total dose ~14.5 mSv (10,2-22,6) ●  4-6 (3,5-7,5) years Swedish background

radiation

Radiation

§  Estimation of cancer mortality /1000 patients » à mean 1/1000/13.3 mSv

•  Tien - dosimetry 22.7 mSv à 1.9/1000 •  Brenner 12 mSv à 1/1250 •  0.84 alt 0.67/1000 per 10 mSv

§  45-year adult » x annual WBCT of 12 mSv until 75-years age » à 1.9% extra cancer mortality risk

Tien HC, J Trauma. 2007 Jan;62(1) Brenner DJ, Radiology. 2004 Sep;232(3):735-8

40

Cost/benefit WBCT §  Contrast media consequenses

– marginal life loss (1/500.000)

§  Radiation death toll (linear radiation theory) – 1/1000 lethal cancers/13.3 mSv – Today´s average 13-26 mSv à 1-2/1000 scans

Cost/benefit WBCT §  20% mortality reduction in registries/

metaanalysis §  Mortality in SweTrau 2014 (NISS=New Injury Severity

Score) – NISS < 15 0.9% >15 17.4% NISS all 4.4%

» Saved lives/1000 patients NISS < 15 2 >15 35 NISS all 9

http://rcsyd.se/swetrau/dokument

41

Cost/benefit WBCT mortality/1000 patients

§  Mortality reduction – extra radiation toll = N:o saved lifes/1000

20% - 1-2

» NISS < 15 2 – 1(2) = 1 (0) » NISS > 15 35 – 1(2) = 34 (33)

» Low risk group – special consideration – Excessive radiation – Clinical prediction rules – Clinical observation 8 h

Linder F, Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Jan 27;24(1) Kendall JL, West J Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;12(4)

Special groups: protocol adjustments?

§  Children – Radiation sensitive; few injured need surgical expl (5%)

§  > 65 y – Mortality risk x10, radiation risk –; renal risk + – Protocol change: lower kV; higher radiation

§  Pregnancy – Don´t hesitate: radiation/contrast OK – Save the mother, save the child

Harvey JJ, Clin Radiol. 2013 Sep;68(9)

42

Friends, not enemies

43

Take home messages

§ Diagnosis of the (critically) ill patient is the goal !!

§ Love but Respect our Prime tools: Radiation & Contrast

§ TEAM: The Radiologist is a Doctor » Not merely an image interpreter!

In the struggle to save lives TEAMWORK ......

44

Thank you for your attention! leidnerimaging.se