PURPOSE: An opportunity exists to evaluate the quality of care in patients undergoing intravenous pyelogram (IVP) imaging and to define the role of IVP in the computed tomography scan era. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, inpatient versus outpatient setting, indication for IVP, physician/specialty who ordered IVP, and the need for subsequent imaging within a 30-day period in patients who underwent IVP from October 2007 to December 2011. Chi-square test was used to compare the number of additional radiologic examinations ordered within 30 days of the initial IVP across the different specialties ordering IVPs. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty patients underwent IVP imaging during the study period. The primary reason to order an IVP was the evaluation of urolithiasis/flank pain (50%), followed by urologic evaluation after surgery (23%). Three hundred and twenty-five patients (48%) subsequently had an additional 547 radiologic studies within 30 days of the IVP to further evaluate their condition. Of the 325 patients undergoing additional imaging studies, 36% had differing or additional diagnostic information noted that could change medical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior imaging of the urologic patient by IVP leads to the acquisition of additional imaging studies to render a diagnosis. IVP has a limited clinical role, and thus, its use should be strictly limited to highly select cases.
PURPOSE: An opportunity exists to evaluate the quality of care in patients undergoing intravenous pyelogram (IVP) imaging and to define the role of IVP in the computed tomography scan era. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, inpatient versus outpatient setting, indication for IVP, physician/specialty who ordered IVP, and the need for subsequent imaging within a 30-day period in patients who underwent IVP from October 2007 to December 2011. Chi-square test was used to compare the number of additional radiologic examinations ordered within 30 days of the initial IVP across the different specialties ordering IVPs. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty patients underwent IVP imaging during the study period. The primary reason to order an IVP was the evaluation of urolithiasis/flank pain (50%), followed by urologic evaluation after surgery (23%). Three hundred and twenty-five patients (48%) subsequently had an additional 547 radiologic studies within 30 days of the IVP to further evaluate their condition. Of the 325 patients undergoing additional imaging studies, 36% had differing or additional diagnostic information noted that could change medical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior imaging of the urologic patient by IVP leads to the acquisition of additional imaging studies to render a diagnosis. IVP has a limited clinical role, and thus, its use should be strictly limited to highly select cases.
Authors: Christine L Gray Sears; John F Ward; Stephen T Sears; Michael F Puckett; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: O F Miller; S K Rineer; S R Reichard; R G Buckley; M S Donovan; I R Graham; W B Goff; C J Kane Journal: Urology Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Okechukwu A Ibeanu; Ralph R Chesson; Karolynn T Echols; Mily Nieves; Fatuma Busangu; Thomas E Nolan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: O Bayrak; A Demirbas; O G Doluoglu; T Karakan; B Resorlu; S Kardas; A Tepeler; S Tangal; S Adanur; O Celik Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 2.590