RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare contrast-enhanced MDCT and (99m)Tc-labeled RBC scanning for the evaluation of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Over 17 months, 55 patients (32 men, 23 women; age range, 21-92 years) were evaluated prospectively with contrast-enhanced MDCT using 100 mL of iopromide 300 mg I/mL. Technetium-99m-labeled RBC scans were obtained on 41 of 55 patients and select patients underwent angiography for attempted embolization. Each imaging technique was reviewed in a blinded fashion for sensitivity for detection of active bleeding as well as the active lower gastrointestinal bleeding location. RESULTS: Findings were positive on both examinations in eight patients and negative on both examinations in 20 patients. Findings were positive on contrast-enhanced MDCT and negative on (99m)Tc-labeled RBC in two patients; findings were negative on contrast-enhanced MDCT and positive on (99m)Tc-labeled RBC in 11 patients. Statistics showed significant disagreement, with simple agreement = 68.3%, kappa = 0.341, and p = 0.014. Sixteen of 60 (26.7%) contrast-enhanced MDCT scans were positive prospectively, with all accurately localizing the site of bleeding and identification of the underlying lesion in eight of 16 (50%). Nineteen of 41 (46.3%) (99m)Tc-labeled RBC scans were positive. Eighteen of 41 matched patients went on to angiography. In four of these 18 (22.2%) patients, the site of bleeding was confirmed by angiography, but in 14 of 18 (77.8%), the findings were negative. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MDCT and (99m)Tc-labeled RBC scanning show significant disagreement for evaluation of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Contrast-enhanced MDCT appears effective for detection and localization in cases of active lower gastrointestinal bleeding in which hemorrhage is active at the time of CT.
