"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    Ureteral Stones: Implementation of a Reduced-Dose CT Protocol in Patients in the Emergency Department with Moderate to High Likelihood of Calculi on the Basis of STONE Score

    Published Online:Mar 4 2016https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151691

    Abstract

    A reduced-radiation-dose CT can be safely and effectively implemented in the emergency department setting for patients with moderate to high likelihood of ureteral stone.

    Purpose

    To determine if a reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) protocol could effectively help to identify patients in the emergency department (ED) with moderate to high likelihood of calculi who would require urologic intervention within 90 days.

    Materials and Methods

    The study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent with HIPAA authorization was obtained. This was a prospective, single-center study of patients in the ED with moderate to high likelihood of ureteral stone undergoing CT imaging. Objective likelihood of ureteral stone was determined by using the previously derived and validated STONE clinical prediction rule, which includes five elements: sex, timing, origin, nausea, and erythrocytes. All patients with high STONE score (STONE score, 10–13) underwent reduced-dose CT, while those with moderate likelihood of ureteral stone (moderate STONE score, 6–9) underwent reduced-dose CT or standard CT based on clinician discretion. Patients were followed to 90 days after initial imaging for clinical course and for the primary outcome of any intervention. Statistics are primarily descriptive and are reported as percentages, sensitivities, and specificities with 95% confidence intervals.

    Results

    There were 264 participants enrolled and 165 reduced-dose CTs performed; of these participants, 108 underwent reduced-dose CT alone with complete follow-up. Overall, 46 of 264 (17.4%) of patients underwent urologic intervention, and 25 of 108 (23.1%) patients who underwent reduced-dose CT underwent a urologic intervention; all were correctly diagnosed on the clinical report of the reduced-dose CT (sensitivity, 100%; 95% confidence interval: 86.7%, 100%). The average dose-length product for all standard-dose CTs was 857 mGy · cm ± 395 compared with 101 mGy · cm ± 39 for all reduced-dose CTs (average dose reduction, 88.2%). There were five interventions for nonurologic causes, three of which were urgent and none of which were missed when reduced-dose CT was performed.

    Conclusion

    A CT protocol with over 85% dose reduction can be used in patients with moderate to high likelihood of ureteral stone to safely and effectively identify patients in the ED who will require urologic intervention.

    © RSNA, 2016

    Online supplemental material is available for this article.

    References

    • 1. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166(1):97–101. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2. Fwu C-W, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, Kusek JW, Kirkali Z. Emergency department visits, use of imaging, and drugs for urolithiasis have increased in the United States. Kidney Int 2013;83(3):479–486. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3. Hyams ES, Korley FK, Pham JC, Matlaga BR. Trends in imaging use during the emergency department evaluation of flank pain. J Urol 2011;186(6):2270–2274. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. U. S. F. and D. A. Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging. NCRP Report. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/UCM200087.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed February 11, 2016. Google Scholar
    • 5. Coursey CA, Casalino DD, Remer EM, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute onset flank pain—suspicion of stone disease. Ultrasound Q 2012;28(3):227–233. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6. Sierzenski PR, Linton OW, Amis ES Jr, et al. Applications of justification and optimization in medical imaging: examples of clinical guidance for computed tomography use in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2014;63(1):25–32. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7. Moore CL, Daniels B, Ghita M, et al. Accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography for ureteral stones in emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 2015;65(2):189–98.e2. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8. Bhatt K, Monga M, Remer EM. Low-dose computed tomography in the evaluation of urolithiasis. J Endourol 2015;29(5):504–511. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9. Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(2):396–401. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10. Lukasiewicz A, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs L, et al. Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry. Radiology 2014;271(2):445–451. Link, Google Scholar
    • 11. Frei R. Ultra-Low CT Dose Accurately Detects Renal Stones. Renal and Urology News. http://www.renalandurologynews.com/ultra-low-ct-dose-accurately-detects-renal-stones/article/248315/. Published 2012. Accessed February 11, 2016. Google Scholar
    • 12. Brink JA. Radiation dose reduction in renal colic protocol CT: are we doing enough to ensure adoption of best practices? Radiology 2014;271(2):323–325. Link, Google Scholar
    • 13. Moore CL, Bomann S, Daniels B, et al. Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone—the STONE score: retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies. BMJ 2014;348:g2191. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14. Moore CL, Daniels B, Singh D, Luty S, Molinaro A. Prevalence and clinical importance of alternative causes of symptoms using a renal colic computed tomography protocol in patients with flank or back pain and absence of pyuria. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20(5):470–478. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 15. Daniels B, Gross CP, Singh D, Luty S, Moore CL. Addition of renal point-of-care limited ultrasound improves a clinical prediction score for uncomplicated ureteral stones in emergency department patients with suspected renal colic: the S.T.O.N.E. PLUS Score. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21:S189. Google Scholar
    • 16. Moore C, Last FM, Last FM, et al. Accuracy of an ultra-low dose CT protocol for ED patients with suspected kidney stone. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:S6. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 17. Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD, McCollough CH, McNitt-Gray MF, Toth TL. AAPM Report No. 204: Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examinations. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2011. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 18. Trattner S, Pearson GD, Chin C, et al. Standardization and optimization of CT protocols to achieve low dose. J Am Coll Radiol 2014;11(3):271–278. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19. Swensen SJ. Patient-centered Imaging. Am J Med 2012;125(2):115–117. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20. Papa L, Stiell IG, Wells GA, Ball I, Battram E, Mahoney JE. Predicting intervention in renal colic patients after emergency department evaluation. CJEM 2005;7(2):78–86. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 21. Chabok A, Påhlman L, Hjern F, Haapaniemi S, Smedh K; AVOD Study Group. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 2012;99(4):532–539. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366(17):1596–1605. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23. Smith-Bindman R, Aubin C, Bailitz J, et al. Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis. N Engl J Med 2014;371(12):1100–1110. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received July 31, 2015; revision requested September 25; revision received November 10; accepted December 10; final version accepted January 6, 2016.
    Published online: Mar 04 2016
    Published in print: Sept 2016