Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE To retrospectively determine the incidence of potentially serious adverse events associated with computed tomographic (CT) colonography performed in patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ethical approval and informed consent were waived, since the study was deemed a clinical audit and patients would not be approached. With a national survey in the United Kingdom, all departments offering CT colonography in everyday practice were identified. The lead gastrointestinal radiologist from all responding departments was interviewed, and the frequency of potentially serious adverse events associated with CT colonography performed in patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer, the total number of examinations performed, and technical factors possibly related to perforation were determined. Where a potentially serious adverse event was encountered, it was explored in detail. Responses were collated, and raw frequencies were determined. Fisher exact test was used to determine differences in event rates between groups. RESULTS At 50 centers, 17 067 CT colonographic examinations (mean number per center, 359; range, 10-3000) were performed. No deaths were reported. Thirteen patients (one [0.08%] of 1313) had had a potentially serious adverse event related to the procedure. There were nine perforations: Four (44%) were asymptomatic and five (56%) were symptomatic, and perforation had an attributable cause, with a symptomatic perforation rate of 0.03% (one in 3413 patients). One patient required laparotomy. An inflated rectal balloon was used to perform 9378 examinations. There was no significant difference between the proportion of perforations associated with rectal balloon inflation (n = 6) and the proportion of those that were not (n = 2) (P = .3). CONCLUSION Potentially serious adverse events related to CT colonography occurred in 0.08% of symptomatic patients.

[1]  L. Garvican.  Planning for a possible national colorectal cancer screening programme , 1998, Journal of medical screening.

[2]  Michal Amitai,et al.  Actual Colonic Perforation in Virtual Colonoscopy: Report of a Case , 2004, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[3]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  The practice of social research , 1969 .

[4]  L. Fritschi,et al.  Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. , 2004, Radiology.

[5]  L. P. Angel,et al.  Perforated Colon Secondary to Virtual Colonoscopy: Report of a Case , 2004, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[6]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  A. Blakeborough,et al.  Complications of barium enema examinations: a survey of UK Consultant Radiologists 1992 to 1994. , 1997, Clinical radiology.

[8]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Steve Halligan,et al.  Optimizing colorectal distension for multi-detector row CT colonography: comparison of automated versus manual carbon dioxide insufflation , 2004 .

[10]  A. Blakeborough,et al.  Retention balloon catheters and barium enemas: attitudes, current practice and relative safety in the UK. , 1997, Clinical radiology.

[11]  S. Halligan,et al.  CT colonography practice in the UK: a national survey. , 2004, Clinical radiology.

[12]  C. Johnson,et al.  Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. , 2003, Radiology.

[13]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[14]  J. Ferrucci,et al.  A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Steve Halligan,et al.  Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. , 2003, Radiology.

[16]  E. Svensson,et al.  Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. , 2002, Radiology.

[17]  C. Williams,et al.  A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? , 2004, Gut.