Pylephlebitis is a rare infection, characterized by non-specific symptoms such as abdominal pain, that often leads to delayed diagnosis, yet it is a severe infection with a high mortality rate. Imaging studies are essential for diagnosis, and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT and abdominal ultrasound are commonly performed. A 51-year-old male was admitted to the hospital with fever and shock. Blood tests revealed liver and kidney dysfunction. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is the best modality to demonstrate the portal vein abnormalities and diverticulitis. But plain abdominal CT was performed due to renal impairment, revealing findings suggestive of small bowel diverticulitis and paralytic ileus. Septic shock, presumably caused by bacterial translocation secondary to paralytic ileus, was diagnosed, and meropenem was initiated. Subsequent abdominal ultrasound revealed thrombosis in the portal vein and an abscess in the region suspected of being affected by small bowel diverticulitis. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the patient developed pylephlebitis, septic shock, and paralytic ileus as a result of small bowel diverticulitis and the associated abscess formation. Oral amoxicillin/clavulanate was continued until the abscess resolved. Pylephlebitis often progresses to septic shock, as seen in the present case. In severe cases of intra-abdominal infections, such as diverticulitis, it is necessary to consider the possibility of pylephlebitis and actively perform imaging studies to confirm the diagnosis. Additionally, in cases where contrast-enhanced CT cannot be performed, abdominal ultrasound is useful for diagnosis.

Pylephlebitis, a septic thrombophlebitis of the portal vein, is an uncommon but serious complication following an abdominal site of infection, most frequently diverticulitis or appendicitis. It has a high mortality rate, yet it commonly presents with unspecific abdominal complaints and fever, making diagnosis by clinical and laboratory examinations alone, impossible. This report highlights the extensive computed tomography (CT) findings of pylephlebitis with multiple hepatic abscesses thought to be secondary to diverticulitis, in a patient presenting with septic shock. Radiological characteristics differentiating the liver lesions from malignancy, and showing the ascending pathway of vascular involvement from the inferior mesenteric vein to portal veins is presented, as well as the search for the primary site of infection. Recognizing and understanding the imaging findings in pylephlebitis is crucial for diagnosis and avoiding delay of appropriate treatment for this otherwise often fatal condition.

In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting.

A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment.

This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD  including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data.

The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of the findings of the present review concern their applicability in common clinical practice as it was impossible to identify strict criteria of failure.

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate algorithms to accurately identify patients with diverticulitis using electronic medical records (EMRs).

Using Kaiser Permanente Southern California's EMRs of adults (≥18 years) with International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modifications, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes of diverticulitis (562.11, 562.13) between 1 January 2008 and 31 August 2009, we generated random samples for pilot (N = 692) and validation (N = 1502) respectively. Both samples were stratified by inpatient (IP), emergency department (ED), and outpatient (OP) care settings. We developed and validated several algorithms using EMR data on diverticulitis diagnosis code, antibiotics, computed tomography, diverticulosis history, pain medication and/or pain diagnosis, and excluding patients with infections and/or conditions that could mimic diverticulitis. Evidence of diverticulitis was confirmed through manual chart review. Agreement between EMR algorithm and manual chart confirmation was evaluated using sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV).

Both samples were similar in socio-demographics and clinical symptoms. An algorithm based on diverticulitis diagnosis code with antibiotic prescription dispensed within 7 days of diagnosis date, performed well overall. In the validation sample, sensitivity and PPV were (84.6, 98.2%), (95.8, 98.1%), and (91.8, 82.6%) for OP, ED, and IP, respectively.

Using antibiotic prescriptions to supplement diagnostic codes improved the accuracy of case identification for diverticulitis, but results varied by care setting.

In patients presenting with acute diverticulitis (AD) and signs of acute peritonitis, the presence of extradigestive air (EDA) on a computer tomography (CT) scan is often considered to indicate the need for emergency surgery. Although the traditional management of "perforated" AD is open sigmoidectomy, more recently, laparoscopic drainage/lavage (usually followed by delayed elective sigmoidectomy) has been reported. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the results of nonoperative management of emergency patients presenting with AD and EDA.

The outcomes of 39 consecutive hemodynamically stable patients (23 men, mean age = 54.7 years) who were admitted with AD and EDA and were managed nonoperatively (antibiotic and supportive treatment) at a tertiary-care university hospital between January 2001 and June 2010 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. These included morbidity (Clavien-Dindo) and treatment failure (need for emergency surgery or death). A univariate analysis of clinical, radiological, and laboratory criteria with respect to treatment failure was performed. Results of delayed elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy were also analyzed.

There was no mortality. Thirty-six of the 39 patients (92.3%) did not need surgery (7 patients required CT-guided abscess drainage). Mean hospital stay was 8.1 days. Duration of symptoms, previous antibiotic administration, severe sepsis, PCR level, WBC concentration, and the presence of abdominal collection were associated with treatment failure, whereas "distant" location of EDA and free abdominal fluid were not. Five patients had recurrence of AD and were treated medically. Seventeen patients (47.2%) underwent elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for which mean operative time was 246 min (range = 100-450) and the conversion rate was 11.8%. Mortality was nil and the morbidity rate was 41.2%. Mean postoperative stay was 7.1 days (range = 4-23).

Nonoperative management is a viable option in most emergency patients presenting with AD and EDA, even in the presence of symptoms of peritonitis or altered laboratory tests. Delayed laparoscopic sigmoidectomy may be useless in certain cases and its results poorer than expected.

The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of IV contrast-enhanced 64-MDCT with and without the use of oral contrast material in diagnosing appendicitis in patients with abdominal pain.

We conducted a randomized trial of a convenience sample of adult patients presenting to an urban academic emergency department with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain and clinical suspicion of appendicitis, diverticulitis, or small-bowel obstruction. Patients were enrolled between 8 am and 11 pm when research assistants were present. Consenting subjects were randomized into one of two groups: Group 1 subjects underwent 64-MDCT performed with oral and IV contrast media and group 2 subjects underwent 64-MDCT performed solely with IV contrast material. Three expert radiologists independently reviewed the CT examinations, evaluating for the presence of appendicitis. Each radiologist interpreted 202 examinations, ensuring that each examination was interpreted by two radiologists. Individual reader performance and a combined interpretation performance of the two readers assigned to each case were calculated. In cases of disagreement, the third reader was asked to deliver a tiebreaker interpretation to be used to calculate the combined reader performance. Final outcome was based on operative, clinical, and follow-up data. We compared radiologic diagnoses with clinical outcomes to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of CT in both groups.

Of the 303 patients enrolled, 151 patients (50%) were randomized to group 1 and the remaining 152 (50%) were randomized to group 2. The combined reader performance for the diagnosis of appendicitis in group 1 was a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 76.8-100%) and specificity of 97.1% (95% CI, 92.7-99.2%). The performance in group 2 was a sensitivity of 100% (73.5-100%) and specificity of 97.1% (92.9-99.2%).

Patients presenting with nontraumatic abdominal pain imaged using 64-MDCT with isotropic reformations had similar characteristics for the diagnosis of appendicitis when IV contrast material alone was used and when oral and IV contrast media were used.