Decision making in patients with acute abdominal pain at a university and at a rural hospital: Does the value of abdominal sonography differ?

Introduction and objectives Abdominal sonography is regarded as a quick and effective diagnostic tool for acute abdominal pain in emergency medicine. However, final diagnosis is usually based on a combination of various clinical examinations and radiography. The role of sonography in the decision making process at a hospital with advanced imaging capabilities versus a hospital with limited imaging capabilities but more experienced clinicians is unclear. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the relative importance of sonography and its influence on the clinical management of acute abdominal pain, at two Swiss hospitals, a university hospital (UH) and a rural hospital (RH). Methods 161 patients were prospectively examined clinically. Blood tests and sonography were performed in all patients. Patients younger than 18 years and patients with trauma were excluded. In both hospitals, the diagnosis before and after ultrasonography was registered in a protocol. Certainty of the diagnosis was expressed on a scale from 0% to 100%. The decision processes used to manage patients before and after they underwent sonography were compared. The diagnosis at discharge was compared to the diagnosis 2 – 6 weeks thereafter. Results Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of sonography were high: 94%, 88% and 91%, respectively. At the UH, management after sonography changed in only 14% of cases, compared to 27% at the RH. Additional tests were more frequently added at the UH (30%) than at the RH (18%), but had no influence on the decision making process-whether to operate or not. At the UH, the diagnosis was missed in one (1%) patient, but in three (5%) patients at the RH. No significant difference was found between the two hospitals in frequency of management changes due to sonography or in the correctness of the diagnosis. Conclusion Knowing that sonography has high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain, one would assume it would be an important diagnostic tool, particularly at the RH, where tests/imaging studies are rare. However, our pilot study indicates that sonography provides important diagnostic information in only a minority of patients with acute abdominal pain. Sonography was more important at the rural hospital than at the university hospital. Further costly examinations are generally ordered for verification, but these additional tests change the final treatment plan in very few patients.

[Role of coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of coronary artery disease - a well-balanced information of the patients and objective decision making are welcome]

Most recently discussion about the optimal treatment for different subsets of patients suffering from coronary artery disease has re-emerged, mainly because of the uncertainty caused by doctors and patients regarding the phenomenon of unpredictable early and late stent thrombosis. Surgical revascularization using multiple arterial bypass grafts has repeatedly proven its superiority compared to percutaneous intervention techniques, especially in patients suffering from left main stem disease and coronary 3-vessels disease. Several prospective randomized multicenter studies comparing early and mid-term results following PCI and CABG have been really restrictive, with respect to patient enrollment, with less than 5% of all patients treated during the same time period been enrolled. Coronary artery bypass grafting allows the most complete revascularization in one session, because all target coronary vessels larger than 1 mm can be bypassed in their distal segments. Once the patient has been turn-off for surgery, surgeons have to consider the most complete arterial revascularization in order to decrease the long-term necessity for re-revascularization; for instance patency rate of the left internal thoracic artery grafted to the distal part left anterior descending artery may be as high as 90-95% after 10 to 15 years. Early mortality following isolated CABG operation has been as low as 0.6 to 1% in the most recent period (reports from the University Hospital Berne and the University Hospital of Zurich); beside these excellent results, the CABG option seems to be less expensive than PCI with time, since the necessity for additional PCI is rather high following initial PCI, and the price of stent devices is still very high, particularly in Switzerland. Patients, insurance and experts in health care should be better and more honestly informed concerning the risk and costs of PCI and CABG procedures as well as about the much higher rate of subsequent interventions following PCI. Team approach for all patients in whom both options could be offered seems mandatory to avoid unbalanced information of the patients. Looking at the recent developments in transcatheter valve treatments, the revival of cardiological-cardiosurgical conferences seems to a good option to optimize the cooperation between the two medical specialties: cardiology and cardiac surgery.