Potential Markers to Reduce Non-Contrast Computed Tomography Use for Symptomatic Patients with Suspected Ureterolithiasis.
clinical score
imaging
renal colic
urolithiasis
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Aug 2022
21 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
01
08
2022
revised:
16
08
2022
accepted:
18
08
2022
entrez:
26
8
2022
pubmed:
27
8
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most patients with ureterolithiasis are managed successfully with conservative treatment. In this context, delineation of clinical risk factors that identify patients with low risk for surgical intervention may reduce use of Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT). Here, emergency department patient files from a 14-month period were reviewed retrospectively, to identify patients who underwent NCCT and showed a ureteral stone. Demographic, clinical and laboratory information was collected. Patients were grouped to either requiring surgical intervention (Group 1) or having successful conservative management (Group 2). The cohort included 368 patients; 36.1% ultimately required surgical intervention (Group 1) and 63.9% were successfully treated conservatively (Group 2). On univariate analysis, patients who required surgical intervention were older, had longer duration of symptoms, had history of urolithiasis and surgical intervention for urolithiasis and had higher serum creatinine levels. Multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors associated with surgical intervention: creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, duration of symptoms ≥ 1.5 days and age > 45 years. Patients with 0, 1, 2 or 3 of the identified risk factors had 19%, 32%, 53% and 73% likelihood, respectively, of surgical intervention. Incorporating these data may reduce the use of NCCT scans in patients who are likely to pass a stone via conservative management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36013299
pii: jpm12081350
doi: 10.3390/jpm12081350
pmc: PMC9410145
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur Radiol. 2017 Nov;27(11):4775-4785
pubmed: 28593428
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Jul;18(7):699-707
pubmed: 21762233
J Urol. 2021 Jan;205(1):152-158
pubmed: 32716743
World J Urol. 2021 Jan;39(1):225-231
pubmed: 32200412
Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Apr;35(4):554-563
pubmed: 28082160
Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):160-5
pubmed: 22498635
BMC Urol. 2020 Aug 8;20(1):119
pubmed: 32770985
J Urol. 2009 Feb;181(2):668-72; discussion 673
pubmed: 19100573
N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 18;371(12):1100-10
pubmed: 25229916
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1153-60
pubmed: 27238616
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):699-706
pubmed: 29321112
Urology. 2019 Nov;133:50-56
pubmed: 31404583
Curr Opin Urol. 2021 Mar 1;31(2):115-119
pubmed: 33394609
J Endourol. 2019 Sep;33(9):750-754
pubmed: 31154851
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Apr;67(4):423-432.e2
pubmed: 26440490
CJEM. 2015 Jan;17(1):38-45
pubmed: 25781382
Urology. 2012 Jan;79(1):43-7
pubmed: 21940040
Eur J Radiol. 2020 May;126:108923
pubmed: 32171911
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1149-52
pubmed: 27154825
West J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;16(2):269-75
pubmed: 25834669
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Dec 14;169(22):2078-86
pubmed: 20008690
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 3;12(1):e0169160
pubmed: 28046001
J Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;51(6):628-635
pubmed: 27720288
BMJ. 2013 May 21;346:f2360
pubmed: 23694687
BMJ. 2019 Jan 2;364:k4931
pubmed: 30602590
Lancet. 2015 Jul 25;386(9991):341-9
pubmed: 25998582
J Urol. 2011 Dec;186(6):2270-4
pubmed: 22014815
BMJ. 2014 Mar 26;348:g2191
pubmed: 24671981
J Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;49(2):130-5
pubmed: 25910829