Dataset Information

Immediate computed tomography or admission for observation after mild head injury: cost comparison in randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the costs of immediate computed tomography during triage for admission with those of observation in hospital in patients with mild head injury.

Design

Prospective cost effectiveness analysis within a multicentre, pragmatic randomised trial.

Setting

39 acute hospitals in Sweden

Participants

2602 patients (aged > or = 6) with mild head injury.

Interventions

Immediate computed tomography or admission for observation.

Main outcome measures

Direct and indirect costs related to the mild head injury during the acute and three month follow-up period.

Results

Outcome after three months was similar for both strategies (non-significantly in favour of computed tomography). For the acute stage and complications, the cost was 461 euros (314 pounds sterling, 582 dollars) per patient in the computed tomography group and 677 euros (462 pounds sterling, 854 dollars) in the observation group; an average of 32% less in the computed tomography group (216 euros, 95% confidence interval -272 to -164; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis showed that computed tomography was the most cost effective strategy under a broad range of assumptions. After three months, total costs were 718 euros and 914 euros per patient-that is, 196 euros less in the computed tomography group (- 281 to - 114; P < 0.001). The lower cost of the computed tomography strategy at the acute stage thus remained unchanged during follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients with mild head injury attending an emergency department can be managed more cost effectively with computed tomography rather than admission for observation in hospital.

Trial registration

ISRCTN81464462.

SUBMITTER: Norlund A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1557926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic perfusion computed tomography (CT) imaging is increasingly used for neoplastic grading, predicting prognosis, and evaluating the response to therapy. To optimize the clinical pancreatic CT perfusion imaging methods, we evaluated 2 different CT scanning protocols concerning pancreas perfusion parameters.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on 40 patients who underwent whole pancreas CT perfusion scanning in The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. Of these 40 patients, 20 patients in group A underwent continuous perfusion scanning, while 20 patients in group B underwent intermittent perfusion scanning. For group A, continuous axial scanning was performed 25 times, and the total scan time was 50 s. For group B, arterial phase helical perfusion scanning was performed 8 times, and then venous phase helical perfusion scanning was performed 15 times, with a total scan time of 64.6 to 70.0 s. A comprehensive list of perfusion parameters between different parts of the pancreas and the 2 groups were compared. The effective radiation dose for the 2 scanning methods was analyzed.ResultsThe parameter of the mean slope of increase (MSI) at different pancreatic parts in group A differed (P=0.028). The pancreas head had the lowest value, and the tail had the highest (about a 20% difference). In group A compared to group B, the blood volume of the pancreatic head was smaller (15.256±2.925 vs. 16.953±3.602), the positive enhanced integral was smaller (0.307±0.050 vs. 0.344±0.060) and the permeability surface was larger (34.205±9. 612 vs. 24.377±8.413); the blood volume of the pancreatic neck was smaller (13.940±2.691 vs. 17.173±3.918), the positive enhanced integral was smaller (0.304±0.088 vs. 0.361±0.051) and the permeability surface was larger (34.898±11.592 vs. 25. 794±8.149); the blood volume of the pancreatic body was smaller (16.142±4.006 vs. 18.401±2.513), the positive enhanced integral was smaller (0.305±0.093 vs. 0.342±0.048) and the permeability surface was larger (28.861±10.448 vs. 22.158±6. 017); the blood volume of the pancreatic tail was smaller (16.446±3.709 vs. 17.374±3.781), the positive enhanced integral was smaller (0.304±0.057 vs. 0.350±0.073) and the permeability surface was larger (27.823±8.228 vs. 21.509±7.768) (P<0.05). The effective radiation dose in the intermittent scan mode was slightly lower at 16.657±2.259 mSv than in the continuous scan mode (17.973±3.698 mSv).ConclusionsDifferent CT scanning intervals had a significant influence on whole pancreas blood volume, permeability surface, and positive enhanced integral. These demonstrate the high sensitivity of intermittent perfusion scanning for identifying perfusion abnormalities. Therefore, for the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases, intermittent pancreatic CT perfusion may be more advantageous.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare assessment of collaterals by single-phase computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) and CT perfusion-derived 3-phase CTA, multiphase CTA and temporal maximum-intensity projection (tMIP) images to digital subtraction angiography (DSA), and relate collateral assessments to clinical outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS:Consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients who underwent CT perfusion, CTA, and DSA before thrombectomy with occlusion of the internal carotid artery, the M1 or the M2 segments were included. Two observers assessed all CT images and one separate observer assessed DSA (reference standard) with static and dynamic (modified American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology) collateral grading methods. Interobserver agreement and concordance were quantified with Cohen-weighted ? and concordance correlation coefficient, respectively. Imaging assessments were related to clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale, ? 2). RESULTS:Interobserver agreement (n = 101) was 0.46 (tMIP), 0.58 (3-phase CTA), 0.67 (multiphase CTA), and 0.69 (single-phase CTA) for static assessments and 0.52 (3-phase CTA) and 0.54 (multiphase CTA) for dynamic assessments. Concordance correlation coefficient (n = 80) was 0.08 (3-phase CTA), 0.09 (single-phase CTA), and 0.23 (multiphase CTA) for static assessments and 0.10 (3-phase CTA) and 0.27 (multiphase CTA) for dynamic assessments. Higher static collateral scores on multiphase CTA (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7) and tMIP images (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) were associated with modified Rankin Scale of 2 or less as were higher modified American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology scores on 3-phase CTA (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2) and multiphase CTA (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6). CONCLUSIONS:Concordance between assessments on CT and DSA was poor. Collateral status evaluated on 3-phase CTA and multiphase CTA, but not on DSA, was associated with clinical outcome.