Incidental findings detected on abdomino-pelvic multidetector computed tomography performed in the acute setting.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to determine the prevalence and significance of incidental findings in patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain presenting to the emergency department (ED) who received abdomino-pelvic multidetector computed tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of data collected for 290 patients over a period of 5 months (April to September 2012) from 3 different university-affiliated EDs. Two board-certified radiologists reviewed the original images independently and recorded the incidental findings. These findings were classified as benign, indeterminate, and worrisome. Only those findings present in the original report were included in the study. If an indeterminate or worrisome incidental finding was identified, the patient's medical records were reviewed to determine if the incidental finding was previously known, whether recommendation was made for further evaluation, and whether this recommendation led to any change in management. RESULTS: We identified 283 incidental findings­144 benign (51%), 114 indeterminate (40%), and 25 worrisome (9%) findings. A statistically significant difference was observed in the percentage of patients who experienced a change in management among those who received recommendations as compared with those who did not, in both previously known (87% vs 22%, P=.001) and previously unknown (70% vs 2%, P=.001) indeterminate findings. CONCLUSION: Unlike benign incidental findings, indeterminate and worrisome findings frequently alter the course of management. Recommendation from radiologists appears to significantly contribute to the management of indeterminate incidental findings.

Warfarin Therapy: Survey of Patients’ Knowledge of their Drug Regimen

Background: Warfarin is utilised for the treatment of thromboembolic disease. Its use demands a careful and continual monitoring given its narrow therapeutic index and potentially life-threatening complications. The aim of this study was to assess the extent of patients’ knowledge of their warfarin therapy. Methods: A total of 200 consecutive patients from a single community hospital completed an online survey questionnaire (www.eSurveysPro.com). Using the responses to the questionnaire, we recorded compliance to warfarin therapy, knowledge about drug interactions, adverse effects of warfarin therapy, complications, and resulting hospitalisation. Results: We recruited 200 patients, 55% (109/200) women and 45% (91/200) men, among which 88% were compliant with their daily medication. Of the 200 patients, 56% were unaware of any potential drug interactions, 58% were unaware of any adverse effects, 27% had experienced adverse effects, 12% had been hospitalised because of adverse effects (33% of which were due to bleeding), and 65% kept a personal record of their international normalised ratio. Conclusions: Despite the high level of compliance, patient knowledge of warfarin therapy was low. Given the potential drug interactions and complexities involved with warfarin therapy, it is of high importance that medical professionals educate their patients and make them aware of any impending signs of emergent medical complications.