Anna Buteau1, Casey A Seideman1, Robert S Svatek2, Ramy F Youssef1, Gaurab Chakrabarti1, Gary Reed3, Deepa Bhat3, Yair Lotan4. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Department Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 4. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: yair.lotan@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine whether patients found to have hematuria by their primary care physicians are evaluated according to best practice policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center maintains institutional outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) that are used by all providers in all specialties. We conducted an Institutional Review Board approved observational study of patients found to have more than 5 red blood cells/high power field between March 2009 and February 2010. RESULTS: There were 449 patients of whom the majority were female (82%), Caucasian (39%), with microscopic hematuria (MH) (85%). Almost 58% of patients were initially symptomatic with urinary symptoms or pain. Evaluation for the source of hematuria was limited and included imaging (35.6%), cystoscopy (9%, and cytology (7.3%). Only 36% of men and 8% of women were referred to a urologist. No abnormality was found in 32% and 51% of patients with gross hematuria and MH, respectively (P = 0.004). There were 4 bladder tumors and 1 renal mass detected. Male gender, ethnicity and gross (vs. microscopic) hematuria were associated with higher rate of urological referral. Advanced age, smoking, provider practice type, and the presence of urinary symptoms were not associated with an increase rate of urological referral. No additional cancers were diagnosed with 29-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While urinalysis remains a common diagnostic tool, most cases of both microscopic and gross hematuria are not fully evaluated according to guidelines. Use of cystoscopy, cytology, and upper tract imaging is limited. Further studies will be needed to determine the extent of the problem and impact on morbidity and survival.
BACKGROUND: To determine whether patients found to have hematuria by their primary care physicians are evaluated according to best practice policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center maintains institutional outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) that are used by all providers in all specialties. We conducted an Institutional Review Board approved observational study of patients found to have more than 5 red blood cells/high power field between March 2009 and February 2010. RESULTS: There were 449 patients of whom the majority were female (82%), Caucasian (39%), with microscopic hematuria (MH) (85%). Almost 58% of patients were initially symptomatic with urinary symptoms or pain. Evaluation for the source of hematuria was limited and included imaging (35.6%), cystoscopy (9%, and cytology (7.3%). Only 36% of men and 8% of women were referred to a urologist. No abnormality was found in 32% and 51% of patients with gross hematuria and MH, respectively (P = 0.004). There were 4 bladder tumors and 1 renal mass detected. Male gender, ethnicity and gross (vs. microscopic) hematuria were associated with higher rate of urological referral. Advanced age, smoking, provider practice type, and the presence of urinary symptoms were not associated with an increase rate of urological referral. No additional cancers were diagnosed with 29-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While urinalysis remains a common diagnostic tool, most cases of both microscopic and gross hematuria are not fully evaluated according to guidelines. Use of cystoscopy, cytology, and upper tract imaging is limited. Further studies will be needed to determine the extent of the problem and impact on morbidity and survival.
Authors: Jeffrey C Bassett; JoAnn Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Matthew Resnick; Chaochen You; Shenghua Ni; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David F Friedlander; Matthew J Resnick; Chaochen You; Jeffrey Bassett; Vidhush Yarlagadda; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Am J Med Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Jacob T Ark; JoAnn R Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Jeffrey C Bassett; William J Blot; Michael T Mumma; Matthew J Resnick; Chaochen You; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Laimonis Kavalieris; Paul J O'Sullivan; James M Suttie; Brent K Pownall; Peter J Gilling; Christophe Chemasle; David G Darling Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Yin Zhou; Marije van Melle; Hardeep Singh; Willie Hamilton; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Fiona M Walter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692