Search

The COVID-19 global pandemic has caused unprecedented worldwide changes in healthcare delivery. While containment and mitigation approaches have been intensified, the progressive increase in the number of cases has overwhelmed health systems globally, highlighting the need for anticipation and prediction to be the basis of an efficient response system. This study demonstrates the role of population health metrics as early warning signs of future health crises. We retrospectively collected data from the emergency department of a large academic hospital in the northeastern United States from 01/01/2019 to 08/07/2021. A total of 377,694 patient records and 303 features were included for analysis. Departing from a multivariate artificial intelligence (AI) model initially developed to predict the risk of high-flow oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic, a total of 19 original variables and eight engineered features showing to be most predictive of the outcome were selected for further analysis. The temporal trends of the selected variables before and during the pandemic were characterized to determine their potential roles as early warning signs of future health crises. Temporal analysis of the individual variables included in the high-flow oxygen model showed that at a population level, the respiratory rate, temperature, low oxygen saturation, number of diagnoses during the first encounter, heart rate, BMI, age, sex, and neutrophil percentage demonstrated observable and traceable changes eight weeks before the first COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Additionally, the engineered rule-based features built from the original variables also exhibited a pre-pandemic surge that preceded the first pandemic wave in spring 2020. Our findings suggest that the changes in routine population health metrics may serve as early warnings of future crises. This justifies the development of patient health surveillance systems, that can continuously monitor population health features, and alarm of new approaching public health crises before they become devastating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite guidelines developed to standardize the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, significant variability remains in recommendations and practice. The purpose of this survey was to obtain information on practice patterns for the evaluation of overt lower GI bleeding (LGIB) and suspected small bowel bleeding. A 34-question electronic survey was sent to all Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) members. Responses were received from 52 unique institutions (40 from the United States). Only 26 (50%) utilize LGIB management guidelines. 32 (62%) use CT angiography (CTA) for initial evaluation in unstable patients. In stable patients with suspected LGIB, CTA is the preferred initial exam at 21 (40%) versus colonoscopy at 24 (46%) institutions. CTA use increases after hours for both unstable (n = 32 vs. 35, 62% vs. 67%) and stable patients (n = 21 vs. 27, 40% vs 52%). CTA is required before conventional angiography for stable (n = 36, 69%) and unstable (n = 15, 29%) patients. 38 (73%) institutions obtain two post-contrast phases for CTA. 49 (94%) institutions perform CT enterography (CTE) for occult small bowel bleeding with capsule endoscopy (n = 26, 50%) and CTE (n = 21, 40%) being the initial test performed. 35 (67%) institutions perform multiphase CTE for occult small bowel bleeding. In summary, stable and unstable patients with overt lower GI are frequently imaged with CTA, while CTE is frequently performed for suspected occult small bowel bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However,multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations.Acomparison of advantages andlimitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included.Finally, consensus statements and recommendations ontechnical parameters andutilization of radiologic techniques forGI bleeding are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crohn disease is an inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract with episodes of exacerbation and remission occurring in children, adolescents, and adults. Crohn disease diagnosis and treatment depend upon a combination of clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, histological, and imaging findings. Appropriate use of imaging provides critical information in the settings of diagnosis, assessment of acute symptoms, disease surveillance, and therapy monitoring. Four variants are discussed. The first variant discusses the initial imaging for suspected Crohn disease before established diagnosis. The second variant pertains to appropriateness of imaging modalities during suspected acute exacerbation. The third variant is a substantial discussion of recommendations related to disease surveillance and monitoring of Crohn disease. Finally, panel recommendations and discussion of perianal fistulizing disease imaging completes the document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are few data describing practice patterns related to the use of sedation/anesthesia for diagnostic imaging in pediatric radiology departments., Objective: To understand current practice patterns related to imaging with sedation/anesthesia in pediatric radiology departments based on a survey of the Society of Chiefs of Radiology at Children's Hospitals (SCORCH) in conjunction with the American College of Radiology's Pediatric Imaging Sedation and Anesthesia Committee., Materials and Methods: A multi-question survey related to imaging with sedation/anesthesia in pediatric radiology departments was distributed to SCORCH member institutions in January 2019. A single reminder email was sent. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed., Results: Of the 84 pediatric radiology departments, 23 (27%) completed the survey. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents self-identified as academic/university-affiliated and 13% as a division/section in an adult radiology department. Imaging sedation (excluding general anesthesia) is commonly performed by pediatric anesthesiologists (76%) and intensive care unit physicians (intensivists, 48%); only 14% of departments expect their pediatric radiologists to supervise imaging sedation. Ninety-six percent of departments use child life specialists for patient preparation. Seventy percent of departments have preparatory resources available on a website, including simulation videos (26%) and audio clips (17%). Nearly half (48%) of the departments have a mock scanner to aid in patient preparation. Imaging sedation/anesthesia is most often scheduled at the request of ordering clinicians (65%), while 57% of departments allow schedulers to place patients into imaging sedation/anesthesia slots based on specified criteria., Conclusion: Imaging sedation/anesthesia practice patterns vary among pediatric radiology departments, and understanding current approaches can help with standardization and practice improvement.