Christopher L Moore1, Brock Daniels2, Monica Ghita3, Gowthaman Gunabushanam3, Seth Luty2, Annette M Molinaro4, Dinesh Singh5, Cary P Gross6. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: Chris.Moore@yale.edu. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 4. Departments of Neurosurgery and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 5. Department of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
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.
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 obesepatients. 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.
Authors: Jonathan P Heldt; Jason C Smith; Kirk M Anderson; Gideon D Richards; Gautum Agarwal; Damien L Smith; Amy Schlaifer; Nicholas T Pittenger; Daniel S Han; Brenton D Baldwin; Gabriel T Schroeder; D Duane Baldwin Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Adam Lukasiewicz; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Laura Coombs; Monica Ghita; Jeffrey Weinreb; Gowthaman Gunabushanam; Christopher L Moore Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brigitte M Baumann; Esther H Chen; Angela M Mills; Lindsey Glaspey; Nicole M Thompson; Molly K Jones; Michael C Farner Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-01-04
Authors: Brock Daniels; Cary P Gross; Annette Molinaro; Dinesh Singh; Seth Luty; Richelle Jessey; Christopher L Moore Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ibraheem M Malkawi; Esther Han; Christopher S Atalla; Richard A Santucci; Brian O'Neil; Jason B Wynberg Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Annemarie M den Harder; Martin J Willemink; Pieter J van Doormaal; Frank J Wessels; M T W T Lock; Arnold M R Schilham; Ricardo P J Budde; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Penelope S Pekow; Meng-Shiou Shieh; Charles D Scales; Tara Lagu; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Raghav Pai; Rishi Modh; Rebecca H Lamoureux; Lori Deitte; David C Wymer; Anna Mench; Izabella Lipnharski; Carl Henriksen; Manuel Arreola; Benjamin K Canales Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 3.411