Search

Study objective We determine whether renal point-of-care limited ultrasonography (PLUS) used in conjunction with the Sex, Timing, Origin, Nausea, Erythrocytes (STONE) clinical prediction score can aid identification of emergency department (ED) patients with uncomplicated ureteral stone or need for urologic intervention. Methods This was a prospective observational study of adult ED patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scan for suspected ureteral stone. The previously validated STONE score classifies patients into risk categories of low (≈10%), moderate (≈50%), or high (≈90%) for symptomatic stone. Renal PLUS assessed for presence of hydronephrosis before CT scanning. The primary outcomes of symptomatic ureteral stone or acutely important alternative finding were abstracted from CT reports. The secondary outcome, urologic intervention, was assessed by 90-day follow-up interview and record review. Results Of 835 enrolled patients, ureteral stone was identified in 53%, whereas 6.5% had an acutely important alternative finding on CT. Renal PLUS modestly increased sensitivity for symptomatic stone among low and moderate STONE score categories. Moderate or greater hydronephrosis improved specificity from 67% (62% to 72%) to 98% (93% to 99%) and 42% (37% to 47%) to 92% (86% to 95%) in low- and moderate-risk patients, with likelihood ratios of 22 (95% CI, 4.2-111) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-8.3), respectively. Test characteristics among high-risk patients were unchanged by renal PLUS. For urologic intervention, any hydronephrosis was 66% sensitive (57% to 74%), whereas moderate or greater hydronephrosis was 86% specific overall (83% to 89%) and 81% (69% to 90%) sensitive and 79% 95% CI, (73-84) specific among patients with the highest likelihood of symptomatic stone. Conclusion Hydronephrosis on renal PLUS modestly improved risk stratification in low- and moderate-risk STONE score patients. The presence or absence of hydronephrosis among high-risk patients did not significantly alter likelihood of symptomatic stone but may aid in identifying patients more likely to require urologic intervention.

Objectives The study was undertaken to determine the prevalence and clinical importance of alternative causes of symptoms discovered in patients undergoing flank pain protocol (FPP) computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with classic symptoms of kidney stone (flank pain, back pain, or both) without evidence of urine infection. Methods This was a retrospective observational analysis of all adult patients undergoing FPP CT scans at two emergency departments (EDs) between April 2005 and November 2010. All CTs (N = 5,383) were reviewed and categorized as “no cause of symptoms seen on CT,” “ureteral stone as cause of symptoms,” or “non–kidney stone cause of symptoms.” Non–kidney stone scans were further categorized as “acutely important,” “follow-up recommended,” or “unimportant cause,” based on a priori diagnostic classifications. All nonstone causes of pain and a random subset of subjects (n = 1,843; 34%) underwent full record review blinded to CT categorization to determine demographics, whether flank and/or back pain was present, and whether there was objective evidence of pyuria. Results Of all FPP CT scans during the study period, a ureteral stone was found to cause symptoms in 47.7% of CTs, with no cause of symptoms found in 43.3% of CTs. A non–kidney stone diagnosis was found in 9.0% of all CTs, with 6.1% being categorized as “acutely important,” 2.2% as “follow-up recommended,” and 0.65% with symptoms from an “unimportant cause.” In the randomly selected subset undergoing full record review, categorizations were similar, with 49.0% of CTs showing kidney stone as cause of pain and 9.0% a non–kidney stone cause (5.9% “acutely important”). When subjects with evidence of urine infection or without flank or back pain were excluded, ureteral stone was identified as the cause of pain in 54.9% of CTs, while non–kidney stone cause of symptoms was found in 5.4% of scans and acutely important alternate causes in 2.8% of scans. Conclusions While a non–kidney stone cause for a patient's symptoms are found in nearly 10% of CTs done using a FPP, acutely important findings occur in less than 3% of scans done in patients with flank or back pain and absence of pyuria. Resumen Prevalencia e Importancia Clinica de las Causas Alternativas de los Sintomas de Colico Nefritico en los Pacientes con Dolor Lumbar o la Espalda y Ausencia de piuria mediante el uso de un protocolo de TC Objetivos Se llevo a cabo este estudio para determinar la prevalencia y la importancia clinica de las causas alternativas de sintomas descubiertos en pacientes con sintomas clasicos de colico nefritico (dolor de flanco, espalda o ambos) sin evidencia de infeccion de orina a los que se les va a realizar una tomografia computarizada (TC) como parte de un protocolo de dolor lumbar (PDL). Metodologia Estudio observacional retrospectivo de todos los pacientes adultos en los que se realizo un TC PDL en dos servicios de urgencias (SU) entre abril de 2005 y noviembre de 2010. Todas las TC (N = 5.383) se revisaron y clasificaron como “causa de sintomas no vista en el TC”, “causa de los sintomas litiasis ureteral” u “otra causa de los sintomas diferente a litiasis renal.” La “causa de los sintomas diferente a litiasis renal” fue posteriormente clasificada como “importante de forma aguda,” “recomendado seguimiento” o “causa no importante” en base a una clasificacion diagnostica a priori. En el grupo “otra causa de los sintomas diferente a litiasis renal” y en un grupo de sujetos aleatorizado (n = 1.843; 34%), se llevo a cabo una revision completa de la historia clinica sin conocer la clasificacion de la TC con el fin de determinar datos demograficos, si estaba presente el dolor de flanco y/o espalda y si habia evidencia objetiva de piuria. Resultados De todas las TC PDL realizadas durante el periodo del estudio, el 47,7% de las TC se clasificaron como “causa de los sintomas litiasis ureteral,” el 43,3% como “causa de sintomas no vista en el TC” y el 9,0% como “otra causa de los sintomas diferente a litiasis renal.” En este ultimo caso, el 6,1% fue clasificado como “importante de forma aguda,” el 2,2% como “seguimiento recomendado” y el 0,65% como “causa no importante”. En el subconjunto seleccionado y aleatorizado donde se llevo a cabo la revision completa de las historias clinicas, las clasificaciones fueron similares, con el 49,0% de las TC clasificadas como “causa de los sintomas litiasis ureteral” y el 9,0% como “otra causa de los sintomas diferente a litiasis renal” (5,9% importante de forma aguda). Cuando se excluyeron los sujetos con evidencia de infeccion de orina o sin dolor en la espalda o en el flanco, la litiasis ureteral se identifico como la causa de dolor en el 54,9% de las TC, mientras que “otra causa de los sintomas diferente a litiasis renal” se encontro en 5,4% de las TC (2,8% importante de forma aguda). Conclusiones Mientras que la causa diferente a la litiasis renal para los sintomas de los pacientes se encontro en casi el 10% de las TC realizadas usando un PDF, los hallazgos importantes de forma aguda ocurrieron en menos de un 3% de las TC realizadas en los pacientes con dolor de flanco o espalda y ausencia de piuria.

Computed tomography (CT) scanning is an essential diagnostic tool and has revolutionized care of patients in the acute care setting. However, there is widespread agreement that overutilization of CT, where benefits do not exceed possible costs or harms, is occurring. The goal was to seek consensus in identifying and prioritizing research questions and themes that involve the comparative effectiveness of "traditional" CT use versus alternative diagnostic strategies in the acute care setting. A modified Delphi technique was used that included input from emergency physicians, emergency radiologists, medical physicists, and an industry expert to achieve this.

Study objective Hydronephrosis is readily visible on ultrasonography and is a strong predictor of ureteral stones, but ultrasonography is a user-dependent technology and the test characteristics of clinician-performed ultrasonography for hydronephrosis are incompletely characterized, as is the effect of ultrasound fellowship training on predictive accuracy. We seek to determine the test characteristics of ultrasonography for detecting hydronephrosis when performed by clinicians with a wide range of experience under conditions of direct patient care. Methods This was a prospective study of patients presenting to an academic medical center emergency department with suspected renal colic. Before computed tomography (CT) results, an emergency clinician performed bedside ultrasonography, recording the presence and degree of hydronephrosis. CT data were abstracted from the dictated radiology report by an investigator blinded to the bedside ultrasonographic results. Test characteristics of bedside ultrasonography for hydronephrosis were calculated with the CT scan as the reference standard, with test characteristics compared by clinician experience stratified into 4 levels: attending physicians with emergency ultrasound fellowship training, attending physicians without emergency ultrasound fellowship training, ultrasound experienced non–attending physician clinicians (at least 2 weeks of ultrasound training), and ultrasound inexperienced non–attending physician clinicians (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, off-service rotators, and first-year emergency medicine residents with fewer than 2 weeks of ultrasound training). Results There were 670 interpretable bedside ultrasonographic tests performed by 144 unique clinicians, 80.9% of which were performed by clinicians directly involved in the care of the patient. On CT, 47.5% of all subjects had hydronephrosis and 47.0% had a ureteral stone. Among all clinicians, ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 72.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.4% to 78.9%), specificity of 73.3% (95% CI 66.1% to 79.4%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.72 (95% CI 2.25 to 3.27), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.44) for hydronephrosis, using hydronephrosis on CT as the criterion standard. Among attending physicians with fellowship training, ultrasonography had sensitivity of 92.7% (95% CI 83.8% to 96.9%), positive likelihood ratio of 4.97 (95% CI 2.90 to 8.51), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.08 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.23). Conclusion Overall, ultrasonography performed by emergency clinicians was moderately sensitive and specific for detection of hydronephrosis as seen on CT in patients with suspected renal colic. However, presence or absence of hydronephrosis as determined by emergency physicians with fellowship training in ultrasonography yielded more definitive test results. For clinicians without fellowship training, there was no significant difference between groups in the predictive accuracy of the application according to experience level.

Study objective Reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) scans have been recommended for diagnosis of kidney stone but are rarely used in the emergency department (ED) setting. Test characteristics are incompletely characterized, particularly in obese patients. Our primary outcome is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a reduced-dose CT protocol for symptomatic ureteral stones, particularly those large enough to require intervention, using a protocol stratified by patient size. Methods This was a prospective, blinded observational study of 201 patients at an academic medical center. Consenting subjects underwent both regular- and reduced-dose CT, stratified into a high and low body mass index (BMI) protocol based on effective abdominal diameter. Reduced-dose CT scans were interpreted by radiologists blinded to regular-dose interpretations. Follow-up for outcome and intervention was performed at 90 days. Results CT scans with both regular and reduced doses were conducted for 201 patients, with 63% receiving the high BMI reduced-dose protocol. Ureteral stone was identified in 102 patients (50.7%) of those receiving regular-dose CT, with a ureteral stone greater than 5 mm identified in 26 subjects (12.9%). Sensitivity of the reduced-dose CT for any ureteral stone was 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.3% to 95.0%), with a specificity of 99.0% (95% CI 93.7% to 100.0%). For stones greater than 5 mm, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 85.0% to 100.0%). Reduced-dose CT identified 96% of patients who required intervention for ureteral stone within 90 days. Mean reduction in size-specific dose estimate was 18.6 milligray (mGy), from 21.7 mGy (SD 9.7) to 3.4 mGy (SD 0.9). Conclusion CT with substantial dose reduction was 90.2% (95% CI 82.3% to 95.0%) sensitive and 98.9% (95% CI 85.0% to 100.0%) specific for ureteral stones in ED patients with a wide range of BMIs. Reduced-dose CT was 96.0% (95% CI 80.5% to 99.3%) sensitive for ureteral stones requiring intervention within 90 days.