Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contrast-enhanced or noncontrast CT for renal colic: utilizing urinalysis and patient history of urolithiasis to decide

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In the emergency setting, flank pain commonly leads to a noncontrast CT despite a significant percentage of patients having alternative diagnoses, often difficult to characterize without contrast. We investigated the combined utility of urinalysis and history of urolithiasis in identifying patients who are unlikely to have urolithiasis and may benefit from a contrast-enhanced study.

Methods

Retrospective review of 350 patients from May 2013 to May 2016 was performed for patients in the emergency department with renal colic that underwent noncontrast CT and urinalysis testing.

Results

Urolithiasis was present in 282 of the 350 patients reviewed (81%), of which 175 (62%) had an obstructing calculus. RBC-positive urinalysis was present in 231 patients with calculi on CT (sensitivity 82%). Patient history of urolithiasis plus urinalysis had a sensitivity of 94% for detecting calculi. Thirty-five patients (10%) had alternative diagnoses, 33 of which were in patients without obstructing calculi. Sixty-seven patients underwent noncontrast CT despite no history of urolithiasis and a negative urinalysis, 10 of which (15%) had alternative diagnoses. Only three cases in this subset (4%) had nonobstructing 1–2-mm calculi, potentially missed with contrast. In this subset, the projected proportion of optimally characterized cases with intravenous contrast is 96%, compared to 85% without contrast (p = .03).

Discussion

Given the high combined sensitivity of urinalysis and patient history (94%), this simple analysis can confidently direct clinicians to a contrast-enhanced CT in “rule-out” cases of flank pain in patients with a negative history and negative urinalysis, particularly given that 15% of these patients had alternative diagnoses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM et al (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62:160

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC (2005) Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 173:848–857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S (2004) Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics 24(suppl 1):S11–S28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kitagawa M, Kotani T, Miyamoto Y, Kuriu Y, Tsurudome H, Nishi H, Yabe M, Otsuji E (2009) Noncontrast and contrast enhanced computed tomography for diagnosing acute appendicitis: a retrospective study for the usefulness. J Radiol Case Rep 3(6):26–33. https://doi.org/10.3941/jrcr.v3i6.101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jang HJ, Lim HK, Lee SH, Kim EY, Kim SH (2000) Acute diverticulitis of the cecum and ascending colon: the value of thin-section helical CT findings in excluding colonic carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(5):1397–1402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DeStigter KK, Keating DP (2009) Imaging update: acute colonic diverticulitis. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 22(3):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1236158

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Dym RJ, Duncan DR, Spektor M, Cohen HW, Scheinfeld MH (2014) Renal stones on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT: does intravenous contrast interfere with detection? Abdom Imaging 39(3):526–532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bove P, Kaplan D, Dalrymple N et al (1999) Reexamining the value of hematuria testing in patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 162:685–687

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Teichman JMH (2004) Acute renal calculus from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 350:684–693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dalrymple N, Verga M, Anderson K et al (1998) The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol 159:735–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vieweg J, Chu T, Freed K et al (1998) Unenhanced helical CT for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 160:679–684

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Katz D, Scheer M, Lumerman J, Mellinger B, Stillman C, Lane M (2000) Alternative or additional diagnoses on unenhanced helical computed tomography for suspected renal colic: experience with 1000 consecutive examinations. Urology 56:53–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nachmann M, Harkaway R, Summerton S et al (2000) Helical CT scanning: the primary imaging modality for acute flank pain. Am J Emerg Med 18:649–652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanzaria HK, Hoffman JR, Probst MA, Caloyeras JP, Berry SH, Brook RH (2015) Emergency physician perceptions of medically unnecessary advanced diagnostic imaging. Acad Emerg Med 22(4):390–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drescher FS, Sirovich BE (2016) Use of computed tomography in emergency departments in the United States. JAMA Intern Med 176(2):273–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Meltzer AC, Pines JM, Richards LM, Mullins P, Mazer-Amirshahi M (2017) US emergency department visits for adults with abdominal and pelvic pain 2007–13: trends in demographics, resource utilization and medication usage. Am J Emerg Med 35(12):1966–1969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shoenfeld EM, Pekow PS, Shieh M, Scales CD, Lagu T, Lindenauer PK (2017) The diagnosis and management of patients with renal colic across a sample of US hospitals: high CT utilization despite low rates of admission and inpatient urologic intervention. PLoS One 12(1):e0169160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Raja AS, Mortele KJ, Hanson R, Sodickson AD, Zane R, Khorasani R (2011) Abdominal imaging utilization in the emergency department: trends over two decades. Int J Emerg Med 4:19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH (2011) Trends in utilization rates of the various imaging modalities in emergency departments: nationwide Medicare data from 2000 to 2008. JACR 8(10):706–709

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bellolio MF, Heien HC, Sangaralingham LR, Jeffery MM, Campbell RL, Cabrera D, Shah ND, Hess EP (2017) Increased computed tomography utilization in the emergency department and its association with hospital admission. West J Emerg Med 18(5):835–845

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Beckett KR, Moriarity AK, Langer JM (2015) Safe use of contrast media: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics 35(6):1738–1750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Anzai Y, Heilbrun ME, Haas D, Boi L, Moshre K, Minoshima S, Kaplan R, Lee VS (2017) Dissecting costs of CT study: application of TDABC (time-driven activity-based costing) in a tertiary academic center. Acad Radiol 24(2):200–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Perisinakis K, Tzedakis A, Spanakis K, Papadakis AE, Hatzidakis A, Damilakis J (2018) The effect of iodine uptake on radiation dose absorbed by patient tissues in contrast enhanced CT imaging: implications for CT dosimetry. Eur Radiol 28(1):151–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dropkin BM, Moses RA, Sharma D, Pais VM Jr (2015) The natural history of nonobstructing asymptomatic renal stones managed with active surveillance. J Urol 193(4):1265–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ordon M, Andonian S, Blew B, Shuler T, Chew B, Pace KT (2015) CUA guideline: management of ureteral calculi. Can Urol Assoc J 9(11–12):E837–E851

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 111 S 11th St, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA

    Vishal Desai, Mougnyan Cox, Sandeep Deshmukh & Christopher G. Roth

Authors
  1. Vishal Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mougnyan Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandeep Deshmukh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher G. Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vishal Desai.

Ethics declarations

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this retrospective study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(XLSX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desai, V., Cox, M., Deshmukh, S. et al. Contrast-enhanced or noncontrast CT for renal colic: utilizing urinalysis and patient history of urolithiasis to decide. Emerg Radiol 25, 455–460 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-018-1604-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-018-1604-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation