Starting an Emergency Radiology Division: Scheduling and Staffing, Compensation, and Equity and Parity.

Establishing an emergency radiology division in a practice that has long-standing patterns of operational routines comes with both challenges and opportunities. In this article, considerations around scheduling and staffing, compensation, and equity and parity are provided with supporting literature references. Furthermore, a panel of experts having established, grown and managed emergency radiology divisions in North America and Europe share their experiences through a question and answer format.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Lower Quadrant Pain: 2022 Update.

This document focuses on imaging in the adult and pregnant populations with right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain, including patients with fever and leukocytosis. Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for RLQ abdominal pain in the United States. Other causes of RLQ pain include right colonic diverticulitis, ureteral stone, and infectious enterocolitis. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of the experts. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

HIV-associated dementia presenting predominantly with clinical motor deficits: A case report.

HIV-associated dementia is commonly seen in older individuals and presents as a subcortical dementia associated with concentration, attention, and memory impairments. Motor signs, such as difficulty with gait, and mood changes are less prominent findings but are considered during diagnosis. We present a case of HIV-associated dementia in a young 29-year-old man who presented with progressive lower extremity weakness and difficulty ambulating.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Major Blunt Trauma.

This review assesses the appropriateness of various imaging studies for adult major blunt trauma or polytrauma in the acute setting. Trauma is the leading cause of mortality for people in the United States <45 years of age, and the fourth leading cause of death overall. Imaging, in particular CT, plays a critical role in the management of these patients, and a number of indications are discussed in this publication, including patients who are hemodynamically stable or unstable; patients with additional injuries to the face, extremities, chest, bowel, or urinary system; and pregnant patients. Excluded from consideration in this review are penetrating traumatic injuries, burns, and injuries to pediatric patients. Patients with suspected injury to the head and spine are also discussed more specifically in other appropriateness criteria documents. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Small-Bowel Obstruction.

Small-bowel obstruction is a common cause of abdominal pain and accounts for a significant proportion of hospital admissions. Radiologic imaging plays the key role in the diagnosis and management of small-bowel obstruction as neither patient presentation, the clinical examination, nor laboratory testing are sufficiently sensitive or specific enough to diagnose or guide management. This document focuses on the imaging evaluation of the two most commonly encountered clinical scenarios related to small-bowel obstruction: the acute presentation and the more indolent, low-grade, or intermittent presentation. This document hopes to clarify the appropriate utilization of the many imaging procedures that are available and commonly employed in these clinical settings. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pancreatitis.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is divided into two types: interstitial edematous and necrotizing. AP severity is classified clinically into mild, moderately severe, and severe, depending on the presence and persistence of organ failure and local or systemic complications. The revised Atlanta classification divides the clinical course of AP into an early (first week) and late phase (after first week) and the clinical phase determines the role of imaging. Imaging has a limited role in the early phase. In the early phase with typical presentations of AP, ultrasound is usually the only appropriate modality and is used for the detection of gallstones. CT and MRI are appropriate in the early phase in equivocal presentations. In the late phase (or at least 48-72 hours after presentation), CT and MRI play a primary role in the imaging of patients with AP for evaluation of etiology, complications, extent of disease, intervention, and follow-up; CT is particularly useful in patients with suspected acute hemorrhage. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Left Lower Quadrant Pain-Suspected Diverticulitis.

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding imaging of suspected diverticulitis as an etiology for left lower quadrant pain, and imaging of complications of acute diverticulitis. The most common cause of left lower quadrant pain in adults is acute sigmoid or descending colonic diverticulitis. Appropriate imaging triage for patients with suspected diverticulitis should address the differential diagnostic possibilities and what information is necessary to make a definitive management decision. Patients with diverticulitis may require surgery or interventional radiology procedures because of associated complications, including abscesses, fistulas, obstruction, or perforation. As a result, there has been a trend toward greater use of imaging to confirm the diagnosis of diverticulitis, evaluate the extent of disease, and detect complications before deciding on appropriate treatment. Additionally, in the era of bundled payments and minimizing health care costs, patients with acute diverticulitis are being managed on an outpatient basis and rapid diagnostic imaging at the time of initial symptoms helps to streamline and triage patients to the appropriate treatment pathway. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Nonlocalized Abdominal Pain.

The range of pathology in adults that can produce abdominal pain is broad and necessitates an imaging approach to evaluate many different organ systems. Although localizing pain prompts directed imaging/management, clinical presentations may vary and result in nonlocalized symptoms. This review focuses on imaging the adult population with nonlocalized abdominal pain, including patients with fever, recent abdominal surgery, or neutropenia. Imaging of the entire abdomen and pelvis to evaluate for infectious or inflammatory processes of the abdominal viscera and solid organs, abdominal and pelvic neoplasms, and screen for ischemic or vascular etiologies is essential for prompt diagnosis and treatment. Often the first-line modality, CT quickly evaluates the abdomen/pelvis, providing for accurate diagnoses and management of patients with abdominal pain. Ultrasound and tailored MRI protocols may be useful as first-line imaging studies, especially in pregnant patients. In the postoperative abdomen, fluoroscopy may help detect anastomotic leaks/abscesses. While often performed, abdominal radiographs may not alter management. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Lower Quadrant Pain-Suspected Appendicitis.

Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain presenting to emergency departments in the United States, where the incidence continues to increase. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of experts. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Mesenteric Ischemia.

Mesenteric ischemia is an uncommon condition resulting from decreased blood flow to the small or large bowel in an acute or chronic setting. Acute ischemia is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality; however, it is difficult to diagnose clinically. Therefore, a high degree of suspicion and prompt imaging evaluation are necessary. Chronic mesenteric ischemia is less common and typically caused by atherosclerotic occlusion or severe stenosis of at least two of the main mesenteric vessels. While several imaging examination options are available for the initial evaluation of both acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia, CTA of the abdomen and pelvis is overall the most appropriate choice for both conditions. 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.

Limited added utility of performing follow-up contrast-enhanced CT in patients undergoing initial non-enhanced CT for evaluation of flank pain in the emergency department.

In our emergency department (ED), patients with flank pain often undergo non-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) to assess for nephroureteral (NU) stone. After immediate image review, decision is made regarding need for subsequent contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) to help assess for other causes of pain. This study aimed to review the experience of a single institution with this protocol and to assess the utility of CECT. Over a 6 month period, we performed a retrospective analysis on ED patients presenting with flank pain undergoing CT for a clinical diagnosis of nephroureterolithiasis. Patients initially underwent abdominopelvic NECT. The interpreting radiologist immediately decided whether to obtain a CECT to evaluate for another etiology of pain. Medical records, CT reports and images, and 7-day ED return were reviewed. CT diagnoses on NECT and CECT were compared. Additional information from CECT and changes in management as documented in the patient's medical record were noted. Three hundred twenty-two patients underwent NECT for obstructing NU stones during the study period. Renal or ureteral calculi were detected in 143/322 (44.4 %). One hundred fifty-four patients (47.8 %) underwent CECT. CECT added information in 17/322 cases (5.3 %) but only changed management in 6/322 patients (1.9 %). In four of these patients with final diagnosis of renal infarct, splenic infarct, pyelonephritis and early acute appendicitis in a thin patient, there was no abnormality on the NECT (4/322 patients, 1.2 %). In the remaining 2 patients, an abnormality was visible on the NECT. In patients presenting with flank pain with a clinical suspicion of nephroureterolithiasis, CECT may not be indicated. While CECT provided better delineation of an abnormality in 5.3 % of cases, changes in management after CECT occurred only in 2 %. This included 1 % of patients in whom a diagnosis of organ infarct, pyelonephritis or acute appendicitis in a thin patient could only be made on CECT.

Findings of chronic sinusitis on brain computed tomography are not associated with acute headaches.

BACKGROUND: Headache is a common complaint in emergency department (ED) patients. Nearly 15% of ED headache patients will have brain computed tomography (CT) done. One frequent finding on these scans is "chronic sinusitis." Assuming that "chronic sinusitis" is the cause of the patient's headache is a potential source of mis-diagnosis. STUDY OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that CT findings of chronic sinusitis occur with equal frequency in patients with atraumatic headache as in control patients with minor head injury. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center medical record review of consecutive discharged patients who received noncontrast head CT scans in an urban ED for either minor closed head injury or atraumatic headache. Each patient's head CT radiologic report was reviewed for findings of sinusitis and classified as chronic sinusitis, indeterminate for sinusitis, air-fluid levels, or no findings of sinusitis. RESULTS: We enrolled 500 patients (234 in the atraumatic headache group, 266 in the minor head injury group). The two groups were similar except that more women were enrolled in the atraumatic headache group. CT findings of chronic sinusitis in the atraumatic headache group (22.2%) and the minor head injury group (17.7%; difference 4.5%; 95% confidence interval of -2.5-11.6%). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of CT findings of sinusitis in ED patients with atraumatic headaches and mild head injury are similar. This strongly suggests that CT findings of chronic sinusitis in patients with atraumatic headache may be incidental, and are rarely the cause of a patient's acute headache.

A prospective pilot study of predictors of acute stroke in emergency department patients with dizziness.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively examine undifferentiated emergency department (ED) patients with dizziness to identify clinical features associated with acute stroke. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a pilot study from November 1, 2009, through October 30, 2010, of adult patients with dizziness presenting to 3 urban academic EDs. Data collected included demographic characteristics, medical history, presenting symptoms, examination findings, clinician pretest probability of stroke, and neuroimaging results. Logistic regression was used to identify variables with a significant association with acute stroke (P<.05). RESULTS: During the study period, we enrolled 473 patients (mean ± SD age, 56.7±19.3 years; 60% female; and 71% white). We found 30 acute, serious diagnoses (6.3%), including 14 ischemic strokes, 2 subarachnoid hemorrhages, 7 mass lesions, 2 demyelinating lesions, 2 severe vertebral artery stenoses, 2 acute coronary syndromes, and 1 case of hydrocephalus and meningitis). We identified 6 clinical variables associated with stroke: age (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.0-1.07), hyperlipidemia (OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.24-10.6), hypertension (OR, 4.91; 95% CI, 1.46-16.5), coronary artery disease (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.06-10.5), abnormal tandem gait test result (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.10-8.89), and high or moderate physician pretest probability for acute stroke (OR, 18.8; 95% CI, 4.72-74.5). CONCLUSIONS: Most ED patients with dizziness do not have a serious cause of their symptoms. Although the small number of outcomes precluded development of a multivariate model, we identified several individual high-risk variables associated with acute ischemic stroke. Further study will be needed to validate the findings of this pilot investigation.

Eliminating routine oral contrast use for CT in the emergency department: impact on patient throughput and diagnosis.

This study aimed to assess the effect of eliminating routine oral contrast use for abdominopelvic (AP) computed tomography (CT) on emergency department (ED) patient throughput and diagnosis. Retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing AP CT during 2-month periods prior to and following oral contrast protocol change in an urban, tertiary care ED. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease, prior gastrointestinal tract-altering surgery, or lean body habitus continued to receive oral contrast. Oral contrast was otherwise eliminated from the AP CT protocol. Patients were excluded if they would not have typically received oral contrast, regardless of the intervention. Data recorded include patient demographics, ED length of stay (LOS), time from order to CT, 72-h ED return, and repeat imaging. Two thousand and one ED patients (1,014 before and 987 after protocol change) underwent AP CT during the study period. Six hundred seven pre-intervention and 611 post-intervention were eligible for oral contrast and included. Of these, 95 % received oral contrast prior to the intervention and 42 % thereafter. After the intervention, mean ED LOS among oral contrast eligible patients decreased by 97 min, P < 0.001. Mean time from order to CT decreased by 66 min, P < 0.001. No patient with CT negative for acute findings had additional subsequent AP imaging within 72 h at our institution that led to a change in diagnosis. Eliminating routine oral contrast use for AP CT in the ED may be successful in decreasing LOS and time from order to CT without demonstrated compromise in acute patient diagnosis.

Formal reporting of second-opinion CT interpretation: experience and reimbursement in the emergency department setting.

The purpose of this study is to describe a system for formally reporting second-opinion interpretations of CT imaging exams accompanying patients transferred emergently to a tertiary care center. Second-opinion interpretations of cross-sectional imaging exams rendered in the emergency department setting over 6 months spanning 22 September 2009 to 22 March 2010 were reviewed and tallied by two radiologists and a research assistant, with a focus on professional fee reimbursement rates. A more in depth review was performed of those exams for which a clinical referral request form was available, detailing such information as the clinical history, content and source of available initial interpretation, and congruity of the initial interpretation with clinical data. Discrepancies between outside and second-opinion interpretations were also assessed. This quality assurance exercise was reviewed by our institutional review board, which waived formal informed consent. Formal second-opinion interpretation was rendered for 370 exams on 198 patients (mean age, 53.5 years; 45.1% female), received from 50 referring facilities. Head CT was the most common imaging exam referred for second opinion. Forty-one of 370 exams (11%) were submitted for self-pay, and 43 (12%) were written off as free care. The remaining 286 exams (77%) were submitted for reimbursement of the professional fee only. Ultimately, of the 286 exams submitted, 260 (91%) were reimbursed for professional fees, 199 (70%) on the initial submission. Of 29 health plans contracted with our facility, 22 ultimately approved all claims made. Three plans denied all claims submitted. The largest payer was Medicare, which reimbursed 88 of 90 submitted claims. Clinical intake forms were available for 184 exams on 107 patients (mean age, 52.7 years, 43.0% female). Trauma was the most common indication, or history, provided (55% of 184 exams, 40% of 107 patients). An outside report of some form was available for 112 of the 184 exams (61%), although only 18 were formal, signed radiology reports from the referring facility. Discrepancies between available outside reports and second-opinion interpretations were noted for 17 out of 112 exams. Need for reimaging was substantially curtailed, with only ten exams repeated within 24 h. A formal process for issuing second-opinion interpretations of cross-sectional exams performed at outside institutions is feasible in the emergency department setting. In the majority of cases, reimbursement for full professional fees can be obtained.

Anterior versus lateral needle decompression of tension pneumothorax: comparison by computed tomography chest wall measurement.

OBJECTIVES: Recent research describes failed needle decompression in the anterior position. It has been hypothesized that a lateral approach may be more successful. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal site for needle decompression. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of emergency department (ED) patients who underwent computed tomography (CT) of the chest as part of their evaluation for blunt trauma. A convenience sample of 159 patients was formed by reviewing consecutive scans of eligible patients. Six measurements from the skin surface to the pleural surface were made for each patient: anterior second intercostal space, lateral fourth intercostal space, and lateral fifth intercostal space on the left and right sides. RESULTS: The distance from skin to pleura at the anterior second intercostal space averaged 46.3 mm on the right and 45.2 mm on the left. The distance at the midaxillary line in the fourth intercostal space was 63.7 mm on the right and 62.1 mm on the left. In the fifth intercostal space the distance was 53.8 mm on the right and 52.9 mm on the left. The distance of the anterior approach was statistically less when compared to both intercostal spaces (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: With commonly available angiocatheters, the lateral approach is less likely to be successful than the anterior approach. The anterior approach may fail in many patients as well. Longer angiocatheters may increase the chances of decompression, but would also carry a higher risk of damage to surrounding vital structures.

Preparing first-year radiology residents and assessing their readiness for on-call responsibilities: results over 5 years.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the preparedness of postgraduate year (PGY)-2 residents for independent call responsibilities and the impact of the radiology residency training program on call preparedness using an objective DICOM-based simulation module over a 5-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A month-long emergency radiology lecture series, conducted over 5 consecutive years, was designed and given to radiology residents at all levels. A DICOM-based, interactive, computer-based testing module with actual emergency department cases was developed and administered at the end of the lecture series. Comparison was made between first-year and upper-level resident test scores using a Student's t test, generalized estimating equations, and individual fixed effects to determine PGY-2 residents' before-call preparedness and the effectiveness of the simulation module to assess call preparedness. Resident scoring on the simulation module was also plotted as a function of progression through their residency program to evaluate the impact of the training program on call preparedness. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 45 PGY-2, 34 PGY-3, 32 PGY-4, and 35 PGY-5 residents attended the lecture series and completed the computer-based testing module. PGY-2 residents scored an average of 71% +/- 15% (SD), PGY-3 residents scored 79% +/- 11%, PGY-4 residents scored 84% +/- 10%, and PGY-5 residents scored 86% +/- 11% of the total points possible. A statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in scoring on the simulation module was identified between the PGY-2 residents and each upper-level class over the 5-year period and during 4 of 5 examination years analyzed separately. A trend toward higher average scores for each cohort of residents as they progressed through residency training was identified. CONCLUSION: Over a 5-year period, first-year radiology residents scored significantly lower than upper-level colleagues on an emergency radiology simulation module, suggesting a significant improvement in the ability of residents to interpret typical on-call imaging studies after the PGY-2 year.

Computed tomographic angiography for the diagnosis of blunt carotid/vertebral artery injury: a note of caution.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) by 16-channel multidetector scanner is increasingly replacing conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for diagnosing or excluding blunt carotid/vertebral injuries (BCVI). To date there has been only 1 study in which all patients received both examinations. That study reported a high accuracy for 16-detector CTA. The current prospective parallel comparative study aims at validating this high accuracy and examining the rates of evaluability of CTA performed with a 16-detector scanner with image reconstruction by modern imaging software. METHODS: Patients at risk for BCVI (facial/cervical-spinal fractures; unexplained neurologic deficit; anisocoria; lateral neck soft tissue injury; clinical suspicion) underwent both CTA (16-channel multidetector scanner) and DSA. Results of the 2 studies and the clinical course were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: During the 40-month study period ending March 2007, approximately 7000 blunt trauma patients were evaluated and of these 119 (1.7%) consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria were screened by CTA. Ninety-two patients underwent confirmatory DSA. Twenty-three (22%) DSA identified 26 BCVI (vertebral, 13; carotid, 13). Among these 23 CTAs, 17 identified 19 BCVIs (vertebral, 10; carotid, 9) (true positives), and 6 failed to identify 7 BCVIs (vertebral, 3; carotid, 4) (false negatives). Sixty-nine of the 92 DSA were normal. Of these 69 CTAs, 10 were falsely suspicious for 11 BCVIs (vertebral, 7; carotid, 4) (false positives), and 56 were normal (true negatives). The remaining 3 CTAs were nonevaluable (mistimed contrast, 1; streak artifact, 2). Sixteen of 89 (18%) evaluable CTAs, were suboptimal (mistimed contrast, 9; streak artifacts, 4; motion artifact, 2; body habitus, 1). Excluding the 3 nonevaluable CTAs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CTA for diagnosing or excluding BCVI were 74%, 86%, 65%, and 90% respectively. One patient with grade II carotid artery injuries (by CTA and DSA) on antiplatelet agent developed stroke related to carotid artery injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Current CTA technology cannot reliably diagnose or exclude BCVI. Twenty percent of CTAs are either nonevaluable or suboptimal. Until more data are available and the technique is standardized, the current trend towards using CTA to screen for and/or diagnose these rare but potentially devastating injuries is dangerous.