A population-based study of the appearances of enteric Campylobacter and non-typhoidal Salmonella infections on computed tomography

Figures & data

Figure 1. The different segments of the distal small bowel and the colon.

Figure 2. Flowchart of steps of inclusion.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics.

Baseline characteristics	N
Age, years, (range)	45 (11–86)
Female sex (%)	114 (54)
Etiology
Campylobacter	172 (80)
Salmonella spp.	43 (20)
Previous gastric bypass surgery (%)	23 (11)
Inflammatory bowel disease (%)	7 (4)
Campylobacter	6 (3)
Salmonella spp.	1 (2)
Previous partial colectomy (%)	5 (2)
Campylobacter	4 (2)
Salmonella spp.	1 (2)
Oral contrast	86 (40)

Table 2. Enteric segment involved.

Segment involved	Campylobacter	Salmonella
Location	n (%)	n (%)
Small bowel proximal to the distal ileum	18 (10)	7 (16)
Distal ileum	128 (74)	29 (67)
Appendix	24 (14)	4 (9)
Cecum	151 (88)	32 (74)
Ascending colon	144 (84)	31 (72)
Right colic flexure	134 (78)	27 (63)
Transverse colon	117 (68)	26 (60)
Left colic flexure	97 (56)	23 (53)
Descending colon	103 (60)	22 (51)
Sigmoid colon	91 (53)	19 (44)
Rectum	85 (49)	19 (44)

Table 3. Comparison of CTA findings between Campylobacter and Salmonella.

	Campylobacter n (%)	Salmonella n (%)	p-Value
Increased mesenterial vascular appearance (comb sign)	74 (43)	24 (56%)	0.13
Contrast loading of the affected mucosa	138 (80)*	36 (84)^	0.6
Contrast loading of the affected serosa	116 (67)	29 (67)	1
Enteric wall oedema	115 (67)	29 (67)	0.9
Thickness of the enteric wall, mm (mean, range)	4 (1.5–10)̈	4 (1–8)’	0.9
Thickness of the enteric wall >3 mm	134 (78)	32 (74)	0.6
Intramural gas	0 (0)	0 (0)	–
Mesenterial vessels/v. porta gas	0 (0)	0 (0)	–
Free abdominal gas	0 (0)	0 (0)	–s
Enlarged mesenterial lymph nodes	76 (44)	15 (35)	0.3
Hounsfield unit value of largest lymph node, mm (range)	92 (30–148)	94 (45–139)	0.6
Short axis measurement largest lymph node, mm (range)	10 (5–18)	9 (4–15)	0.06
Ascites	64 (37)	16 (37)	0.9
Enteric fat stranding	121 (70)	30 (70)	0.9
Skipped lesions	16 (9)	2 (4)	0.3
No of segment involved, median (range)	7 (0–11)	5 (0–10)	0.1
Water halo sign	108 (63)	26 (60)	0.8
Empty colon sign	100 (58)	18 (42)	0.06
Pancolitis	72 (42)	13 (30)	0.2

*Nine examinations could not be assessed owing to oral contrast. ^Three examinations could not be performed. ̈Five examinations could not be assessed.’2 Examinations could not be performed. Pancolitis was defined as colitis affecting the cecum and rectum.

Table 4. Further comparisons between Campylobacter and Salmonella.

	Campylobacter n (%)	Salmonella n (%)	p-Value
CRP (mg/L), median (range)	125.5 (10–333)	117 (0.6–478)	0.8
Leucocyte count × 10^9/L	9.0 (3.7–28.3)	8.46 (3.0–21.6)	0.5
Temperature (degrees celsius)	37.6 (35.5–40.7)	37.8 (35.9–40.2)	0.2

CRP: C-reactive protein.

Table A1. Number of enteric segments involved.

No of segments^# involved	Campylobacter n (%)	Salmonella n (%)
0	10 (6)	3 (7)
1	1 (1)	1 (2)
2	6 (3)	3 (7)
3	17 (10)	4 (5)
4	13 (8)	5 (12)
5	24 (14)	6 (14)
6	10 (6)	4 (9)
7	11 (9)	2 (5)
8	16 (9)	4 (5)
9	50 (29)	10 (23)
10	13 (8)	1 (2)
11	1 (1)	0 (0)

^#Segments divided as denoted in Figure 1.

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.