Cost Implications of Oral Contrast Administration in the Emergency Department: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

PURPOSE: To quantify the monetary and time costs associated with oral contrast administration in the emergency department (ED) for patients with nontraumatic abdominal pain and to evaluate the cost savings associated with an institutional policy change in the criteria for oral contrast administration. METHODS: A HIPAA-complaint, institutional review board-approved time-driven activity-based costing analysis was performed using both prospective time studies and retrospective data obtained from a quaternary care center. Retrospective data spanned a 1-year period (January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016). A process map was generated. Examination volume-related data, labor costs, and material costs were determined and applied to a base-case model. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. Multivariate analysis was used to estimate the cost savings associated with a policy change eliminating oral contrast for patients with body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, no prior abdominal surgery within 30 days preceding CT, and no inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: The baseline oral contrast utilization rate was 86% (4,541 of 5,263). The annual base-case cost estimate for oral contrast administration was $82,552. In multivariate analyses, this ranged from $13,685 to $315,393. The model was most sensitive to the volume of CTs requiring oral contrast. Applying parameters from the new policy change reduced the annual cost by 52% (cost saving: $35,836.57). Impact of oral contrast on time to discharge was highly variable and dependent on the contrast agent utilized. CONCLUSION: Costs associated with oral contrast in the ED are modest and should be balanced with its potential diagnostic benefits. Our criteria reduced oral contrast utilization by 52%.

Incisional Hernia Repair: What the Radiologist Needs to Know.

OBJECTIVE: Incisional hernias are becoming more prevalent with increases in the obesity of the population and the complexity of abdominal surgeries. Radiologists' understanding of these hernias is limited. This article examines abdominal wall anatomy, surgical techniques, the role of imaging (current and emerging), and complications from the surgical perspective, to enhance to the role of the radiologist. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the relevant anatomy, surgical techniques, and postoperative complications in patients with incisional hernial repair can help the radiologist improve care.

Effect of Fixed-Volume and Weight-Based Dosing Regimens on the Cost and Volume of Administered Iodinated Contrast Material at Abdominal CT.

PURPOSE: To determine the magnitude of subject-level and population-level cost savings that could be realized by moving from fixed-volume low-osmolality iodinated contrast material administration to an effective weight-based dosing regimen for contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. METHODS: HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-exempt retrospective cohort study of 6,737 subjects undergoing contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT from 2014 to 2015. Subject height, weight, lean body weight (LBW), and body surface area (BSA) were determined. Twenty-six volume- and weight-based dosing strategies with literature support were compared with a fixed-volume strategy used at the study institution: 125 mL 300 mgI/mL for routine CT, 125 mL 370 mgI/mL for multiphasic CT (single-energy, 120 kVp). The predicted population- and subject-level effects on cost and contrast material utilization were calculated for each strategy and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Most subjects underwent routine CT (91% [6,127/6,737]). Converting to lesser-volume higher-concentration contrast material had the greatest effect on cost; a fixed-volume 100 mL 370 mgI/mL strategy resulted in $132,577 in population-level savings with preserved iodine dose at routine CT (37,500 versus 37,000 mgI). All weight-based iodine-content dosing strategies (mgI/kg) with the same maximum contrast material volume (125 mL) were predicted to contribute mean savings compared with the existing fixed-volume algorithm ($4,053-$116,076/strategy in the overall study population, $1-$17/strategy per patient). Similar trends were observed in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Large cost and material savings can be realized at abdominopelvic CT by adopting a weight-based dosing strategy and lowering the maximum volume of administered contrast material.

Cost-Savings Analysis of Renal Scintigraphy, Stratified by Renal Function Thresholds: Mercaptoacetyltriglycine Versus Diethylene Triamine Penta-Acetic Acid.

PURPOSE: To determine the financial implications of switching technetium (Tc)-99m mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG-3) to Tc-99m diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) at certain renal function thresholds before renal scintigraphy. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived for this HIPAA-compliant, retrospective, cohort study. Consecutive adult subjects (27 inpatients; 124 outpatients) who underwent MAG-3 renal scintigraphy, in the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, were stratified retrospectively by hypothetical serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds, based on pre-procedure renal function. Thresholds were used to estimate the financial effects of using MAG-3 when renal function was at or worse than a given cutoff value, and DTPA otherwise. Cost analysis was performed with consideration of raw material and preparation costs, with radiotracer costs estimated by both vendor list pricing and proprietary institutional pricing. The primary outcome was a comparison of each hypothetical threshold to the clinical reality in which all subjects received MAG-3, and the results were supported by univariate sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Annual cost savings by serum creatinine threshold were as follows (threshold given in mg/dL): $17,319 if ≥1.0; $33,015 if ≥1.5; and $35,180 if ≥2.0. Annual cost savings by eGFR threshold were as follows (threshold given in mL/min/1.73 m(2)): $21,649 if ≤60; $28,414 if ≤45; and $32,744 if ≤30. Cost-savings inflection points were approximately 1.25 mg/dL (serum creatinine) and 60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (eGFR). Secondary analysis by proprietary institutional pricing revealed similar trends, and cost savings of similar magnitude. Sensitivity analysis confirmed cost savings at all tested thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Reserving MAG-3 utilization for patients who have impaired renal function can impart substantial annual cost savings to a radiology department.

Pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: can magnetic resonance urography identify crossing vessels?

BACKGROUND: MR Urography (MRU) is an increasingly used imaging modality for the evaluation of pediatric genitourinary obstruction. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pediatric MR urography (MRU) reliably detects crossing vessels in the setting of suspected ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. The clinical significance of these vessels was also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified pediatric patients diagnosed with UPJ obstruction by MRU between May 2009 and June 2014. MRU studies were evaluated by two pediatric radiologists for the presence or absence of crossing vessels. Ancillary imaging findings such as laterality, parenchymal thinning/scarring, trapped fluid in the proximal ureter, and presence of renal parenchymal edema were also evaluated. Imaging findings were compared to surgical findings. We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous data and the Fisher exact test to compare proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 25 (96%) UPJ obstructions identified by MRU were surgically confirmed. MRU identified crossing vessels in 10 of these cases, with 9 cases confirmed intraoperatively (κ = 0.92 [95% CI: 0.75, 1.0]). Crossing vessels were determined to be the primary cause of UPJ obstruction in 7/9 children intraoperatively, while in two children the vessels were deemed incidental and noncontributory to the urinary tract obstruction. There was no significant difference in age or the proportions of ancillary findings when comparing children without and with obstructing vessels. CONCLUSION: MRU allows detection of crossing vessels in pediatric UPJ obstruction. Although these vessels are the primary cause of obstruction in some children, they are incidental and non-contributory in others. Our study failed to convincingly identify any significant predictors (e.g., age or presence of renal parenchymal edema) that indicate when a crossing vessel is the primary cause of obstruction.