Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging utilization in the management of appendicitis and its impact on hospital charges

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess the trends in imaging utilization in adults with diagnosis of appendicitis and the role that imaging plays in the escalating appendicitis hospital charges. Data on demographics, imaging utilization, and charges of all patients discharged after a diagnosis of appendicitis during 6 years (1999–2004) were obtained from the integrated database of a large hospital. The number of discharges from 1999 to 2004 in the institution steadily decreased. An average of 2.34 imaging studies per patient were obtained, increasing from 1.85 in 1999 to 3.07 in 2004 (p = 0.001). Computed tomography (CT) studies represented 65.9% of the total of studies obtained, while plain films and ultrasound represented 19 and 14%, respectively. The percentage of patients who underwent CT increased from 51.4 to 75.7%, with relative decreases of 12 and 54% for plain abdominal films and ultrasound, respectively. Patients older than 65 years had higher rates of imaging utilization, averaging 4.3 compared with 1.86 studies in their younger counterparts (p = 0.001). Imaging utilization rates did not significantly differ among races (p > 0.5), genders (p > 0.8), discharge services (p > 0.1), or payer groups (p > 0.5). Average hospital charges for appendicitis increased by 16.3%, while imaging charges increased as a fraction of hospital charges from 7.89 to 10.87%. Imaging utilization has increased rapidly, but trends show a slowdown that might correspond with achievement of standardization. This suggests that long-term continuous rising is unlikely. Imaging charges correlate with increased hospital charges but cannot explain or accurately predict them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davies G, Dasbach E, Teustch S (2004) The burden of appendicitis related hospitalizations in the United States in 1997. Surg Infect 5:160–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. HCUPnet, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (2007) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Last accessed January 2007

  3. Rao P, Rhea J, Noveville R, Mostafavi A, McCabe C (1998) Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 338:141–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pickuth D, Spielmann R (2001) Unenhanced spiral CT for evaluating acute appendicitis in daily routine. A prospective study. Hepato-gastroenterol 48:140–142

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fush J, Schlamberg J, Shortsleeve M, Schuler J (2002) Impact of abdominal CT imaging on the management of appendicitis: an update. J Surg Res 106:131–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rao, P, Rhea J, Rattner D, Venus L, Novelline R (1999) Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg 229:344–349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Raman S, Lu D, Kadell B, Vodopich D, Sayre J, Cryer H (2002) Accuracy of nonfocused helical CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a 5-year review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1319–1325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Hoe L, Miserez M (2000) Effectiveness of imaging studies in acute appendicitis: a simplified decision model. Eur J Emerg Med 7:25–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balthazar E, Rofsky N, Zucker R (1998) Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Am J Gastroenterol 93:768–771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McDonald G, Pendarvis D, Wilmoth R, Daley B (2001) Influence of preoperative computed tomography on patients undergoing appendectomy. Am Surg 67:1017–1021

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Safran D, Pilati D, Foz E, Oller D (2001) Is appendiceal CT scan overused for evaluating patients with right lower quadrant pain? Am J Emerg Med 19:199–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. American College of Radiology (2006) ACR appropriateness criteria™. Acute right lower quadrant pain. Available at www.acr.org. Last accessed March 2006

  13. Lee S, Walsh A, Ho H (2001) Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 136:556–562

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Beinfeld M, Gazelle G (2005) Diagnostic imaging costs: are they driving up the costs of hospital care? Radiology 235:934–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Flum D, Koepsell T (2002) The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg 137:799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bendeck S, Nino-Murcia M, Berry G, Jeffrey R (2002) Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 225:131–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Flum D, McClure T, Morris A, Koepsell T (2005) Misdiagnosis of appendicitis and the use of diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Surg 201:933–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weston A, Jackson T, Blamey S (2005) Diagnosis of appendicitis in adults by ultrasonography or computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21:368–379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maitino A, Levin D, Parker L, Rao V, Sunshine J (2003) Practice patterns of radiologists and nonradiologists in utilization of noninvasive diagnostic imaging among the Medicare population 1993–1999. Radiology 228:795–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maitino A, Levin D, Parker L, Rao V, Sunshine J (2003) Nationwide trends in rates of utilization of noninvasive diagnostic imaging among the Medicare population between 1993 and 1999. Radiology 227:113–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhargavan M, Sunshine J (2005) Utilization of radiology services in the United States: levels and trends in modalities, regions, and populations. Radiology 234:824–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) (2007) A complete table of the codes is available at www.cdc.gov/nchs. Last accessed January 2007

  23. Musunuru S, Chen H, Rikkers L, Weber S (2007) Computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: definitive or detrimental? J Gastrointest Surg 11:1417–1422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McDonald G, Pendarvis D, Wilmoth R, Daley B (2001) Influence of preoperative computed tomography on patients undergoing appendectomy. Am Surg 67:1017–1021

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Garfield J, Birkhahn R, Gaeta T, Briggs W (2004) Diagnostic pathways and delays on route to operative intervention in acute appendicitis. Am Surg 70:1010–1013

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhargavan M, Sunshine J (2005) Workload of radiologists in the United States in 2002–2003 and trends since 1991–1992. Radiology 236:920–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kosaka N, Sagoh T, Uematsu H et al (2007) Difficulties in the diagnosis of appendicitis: review of CT and US images. Emerg Radiol 14:289–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Al-Khayal K, Al-Omran M (2007) Computed tomography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of equivocal acute appendicitis. A meta-analysis. Saudi Med J 28:173–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cheng K, Shiau Y, Lin C, Lee C, Kao A (2003) Comparison between technetium-99 m hexamethylpropyleneamineoxide labeled white blood cell abdomen scan and abdominal sonography to detect appendicitis in female patients with an atypical clinical presentation. Hepato-gastroenterol 50:136–139

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sun S, Wu H, Wang J, Ho S, Kao A (2002) Comparison between technetium 99 m hexamethylpropyleneamine oxide labeled white blood cell abdominal scan and abdominal sonography to detect appendicitis in adult patients with atypical clinical presentation. Abdom Imaging 27:734–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Hansel J. Otero, Sukru Mehmet Erturk, Roberto E. Ochoa, Aldo Gonzalez-Beicos & Pablo R. Ros

  2. Hospital Administration Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Silvia Ondategui-Parra

Authors
  1. Hansel J. Otero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia Ondategui-Parra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sukru Mehmet Erturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberto E. Ochoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aldo Gonzalez-Beicos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pablo R. Ros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hansel J. Otero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Otero, H.J., Ondategui-Parra, S., Erturk, S.M. et al. Imaging utilization in the management of appendicitis and its impact on hospital charges. Emerg Radiol 15, 23–28 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-007-0678-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-007-0678-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation