Is CT-defined obstruction a predictor of urological intervention in emergency department patients presenting with renal colic?

Larger proximal ureteral stones with severe pain, rather than ureteral obstruction, are associated with urological intervention [excerpt]

…According to the latest Canadian Urological Association guidelines for management of ureteral stones, patients presenting with ureteral stones <5 mm could be managed conservatively, provided that they don’t have infectious symptoms, intolerable pain, or a threat to renal function.1 When urological intervention is contemplated, the decision-making process takes into account patient- related factors (intolerable pain, infectious complications, impending renal failure, coagulopathies and renal anomalies including solitary kidney); and stone-related factors (stone size, location, density, and skin-to-stone distance). However, signs of ureteral obstruction on computed tomography (CT) are not part of the guidelines.

In their study, Massaro et al performed a retrospective review of 195 patients presenting with ureteral stones at a tertiary Canadian centre [@SJRHEM] between 2011 and 2013.2 Forty-two per- cent of the patients presenting with ureteral stones underwent urological intervention, including cystoscopy with retrograde pyelography, placement of ureteric stent, shockwave lithotrip- sy, and/or ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. A radiologist and a urologist independently reviewed all CT scans for prede ned criteria of ureteral obstruction (no obstruction, partial, or com- plete obstruction) based on degree of hydronephrosis, hydro- ureter, nephromegaly, and perinephric stranding. In addition, the authors examined other potential predictors for interven- tion, including patient demographics, stone size and location, amount of analgesics used, signs and symptoms of infection, serum creatinine, cumulative intravenous uid administered, and the prescription of medical expulsive therapy.

Not surprisingly, the authors found that stone size and location, in addition to cumulative opioid dose, were independent predictors for urological intervention. In fact, every mm increase in stone size increased the likelihood of intervention 2.2 times (odds ratio [OR] 2.17; 95%  [CI] 1.67‒2.85). The OR exceeded unity for stones larger than 4.5 mm, indicating higher likelihood of urological intervention for stones larger than 4.5 mm. Similarly, proximal stones were 4.7 times more likely to require intervention than distal stones (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.09‒0.49). Finally, every 10 mg increase in morphine administered was associated with a 30% increase in the odds of intervention (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.07‒1.58). However, degree of obstruction was not an independent predictor of intervention for ureteral stones (OR 1.757; 95% CI 0.899‒3.436). Finally, none of the variables predicted 30-day return to the emergency department (ED). This could be explained by the very low number of returns to the ED in both groups.

Despite its retrospective nature, this study con rms previ- ous studies that ureteral stone size (>4.5 mm), proximal loca- tion, and intractable pain requiring higher doses of opioids are associated with urological intervention. Furthermore, the degree of ureteral obstruction on CT scans did not pre- dict intervention. While CT scan ndings of hydronephrosis, hydroureter, nephromegaly, and perinephric stranding are helpful in diagnosing ureteral stones, they are not helpful in guiding the decision-making process for intervention.

Sero Andonian, MD, MSc, FRCSC, FACS; Associate Professor of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Cite as: Can Urol Assoc J 2017;11(3-4):93. http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4511

References

  1. Ordon M, Andonian S, Blew B, et al. CUA guideline: Management of ureteral calculi. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9(11-12):E837-51. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3483
  2. Massaro PA, Kanji A, Atkinson P, et al. Is computed tomography-de ned obstruction a predictor of urological intervention in emergency department patients presenting with renal colic? Can Urol Assoc J 2017;11(3-4):88-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4143

Read the @SJRHEM paper here…

Download (PDF, 268KB)

 

Continue Reading

“Bypass in a box” – Team ECMO takes first prize at Dragons’ Den Event

April 2017 – Team ECMO, lead by Drs. Paul Atkinson, Michael Howlett, Mark Tutschka, Jay Mekwan, and Mr. Bill O’Reilly, and representing Emergency Medicine, ICU and the NB Heart Centre, has been awarded the first prize of $75,000 to fund the initial phases of their proposed ECPR project. The team hopes to research the feasibility of introducing Extracorporeal CPR (“bypass in a box”) at the Saint John Regional Hospital.

https://www.telegraphjournal.com/greater-saint-john/story/100172219/dragons-den-saint-john-hopsital

 

Continue Reading

SHoC blog from @CanadiEM

Social media site @CanadiEM recently featured the @CJEMonline @IFEM2 #SHoC Consensus Protocol, featuring authors from @SJRHEM among others.

So why do we need another ultrasound protocol in emergency medicine? RUSHing from the original FAST scan, playing the ACES, FOCUSing on the CAUSE and meeting our FATE, it may seem SHoCking that many of these scanning protocols are not based on disease incidence or data on their impact, but rather on expert opinion. The Sonography in Hypotension (SHoC) protocols were developed by an international group of critical care and emergency physicians, using a Delphi consensus process, based upon the actual incidence of sonographic pathology detected in previously published international prospective studies [Milne; Gaspari]. The protocols are formulated to help the clinician utilize ultrasound to confirm or exclude common causes, and guides them to consider core, supplementary and additional views, depending upon the likely cause specific to the case.

Why would I take the time to scan the aorta of a 22 year old female with hypotension, when looking for pelvic free fluid might be more appropriate? Why would I not look for lung sliding, or B lines in a breathless shocked patient? Consideration of the shock category by addressing the “4 Fs” (fluid, form, function, and filling) will provide a sense of the best initial therapy and should help guide other investigations. Differentiating cardiogenic shock (a poorly contracting, enlarged heart, widespread lung B lines, and an engorged IVC) in an elderly hypotensive breathless patient, from sepsis (a vigorously contracting, normally sized or small heart, focal or no B lines, and an empty IVC) will change the initial resuscitation plan dramatically. Differentiating cardiac tamponade from tension pneumothorax in apparent obstructive shock or cardiac arrest will lead to dramatically differing interventions.

SHoC guides the clinician towards the more likely positive findings found in hypotensive patients and during cardiac arrest, while providing flexibility to tailor other windows to the questions the clinician needs to answer. One side does not fit all. That is hardly SHoCing news. Prospective validation of ultrasound protocols is necessary, and I look forward to future analysis of the effectiveness of these protocols.

References

Scalea TM, Rodriguez A, Chiu WC, et al. Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST): results from an inter- national consensus conference. J Trauma 1999;46:466-72.

Labovitz AJ, Noble VE, Bierig M, Goldstein SA, Jones R, Kort S, Porter TR, Spencer KT, Tayal VS, Wei K. Focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergent setting: a consensus statement of the American Society of Echocardiography and American College of Emergency Physicians. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2010 Dec 31;23(12):1225-30.

Hernandez C, Shuler K, Hannan H, Sonyika C, Likourezos A, Marshall J. C.A.U.S.E.: cardiac arrest ultra-sound exam – a better approach to managing patients in primary non-arrhythmogenic cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2008;76:198–206

Atkinson PR, McAuley DJ, Kendall RJ, et al. Abdominal and Cardiac Evaluation with Sonography in Shock (ACES): an approach by emergency physicians for the use of ultrasound in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Emerg Med J 2009;26:87–91

Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. The RUSH exam: Rapid Ultrasound in Shock in the evaluation of the critically lll. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2010;28:29 – 56

Jensen MB, Sloth E, Larsen KM, Schmidt MB: Transthoracic echocardiography for cardiopulmonary monitoring in intensive care. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004, 21: 700-707.

Gaspari R, Weekes A, Adhikari S, Noble VE, Nomura JT, Theodoro D, Woo M, Atkinson P, Blehar D, Brown SM, Caffery T. Emergency department point-of-care ultrasound in out-of-hospital and in-ED cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2016 Dec 31;109:33-9.

Milne J, Atkinson P, Lewis D, et al. (April 08, 2016) Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest (SHoC): Rates of Abnormal Findings in Undifferentiated Hypotension and During Cardiac Arrest as a Basis for Consensus on a Hierarchical Point of Care Ultrasound Protocol. Cureus 8(4): e564. doi:10.7759/cureus.564

Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest: The SHoC Consensus Statement

Continue Reading

CAEP Definition of an Emergency Physician and the Importance of Emergency Medicine Certification

CAEP Definition of an Emergency Physician

An emergency physician is a physician who is engaged in the practice of emergency medicine and demonstrates the specific set of required competencies that define this field of medical practice. The accepted route to demonstration of competence in medicine in Canada is through certification by a recognized certifying body.*

CAEP recognizes that historically many of its members are physicians who have practiced emergency medicine without formal training and certification. Many have been, and continue to be key contributors to developing emergency medicine and staffing emergency departments in Canada. CAEP acknowledges the contributions of these valued physicians and recognizes them as emergency physicians. It is CAEP’s vision going forward that physicians entering emergency practise will demonstrate their competencies by obtaining certification.

* Recognized certifying bodies in Canada are:
The Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Emergency Physicians with equivalent non-Canadian training and certification are also recognized in Canada eg The American Board of Emergency Medicine)

CAEP Statement on the Importance of Emergency Medicine Certification in Canada

It is CAEP’s vision, that by 2020 all emergency physicians in Canada will be certified in emergency medicine by a recognized certifying body.*

Toward that vision, provincial governments and Faculties of Medicine must urgently allocate resources to increase the numbers of emergency medicine postgraduate positions in recognized training programs so the Colleges are able to address the gap in human resources and training. Furthermore, physicians who have historically practiced emergency medicine without certification must be supported in their efforts to become certified. CAEP is committed to facilitate this process by cataloguing and nationally coordinating practice- and practitioner-friendly educational continuing professional development programs designed to assist non-certified physicians to be successful in their efforts.

* Recognized certifying bodies in Canada are:
The Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Emergency physicians with equivalent non-Canadian training and certification are also recognized in Canada eg The American Board of Emergency Medicine)

We have also published on this topic, highlighting the need for more resident positions in New Brunswick and PEI. Read our paper here.

 

Read more from CAEP here.

 

Continue Reading

Allscripts (i3) Documents Filter

New Documents Filter for New Physicians All new physicians getting access to Allscripts will have a new filter available to them by default on their documents tab that pulls in just physician documents to make it easier to find those key documents (such as Operative Records, Discharge Summaries, etc).

For existing physicians, here is how to create a filter to help you to find Physician documents:

Download (PDF, 227KB)

Continue Reading

Congratulations to Dr. Luke Taylor – CAEP 2017 Resident Research Abstract Award

“Does point of care ultrasound improve resuscitation markers in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial.”

Congratulations to Dr. Luke Taylor and the rest of the team involved in the SHoC-ED1 research project. Luke’s research abstract has been selected by the Canadian Association of Emergency Medicine (CAEP) to win a CAEP2017 Resident Research Abstract Award. The announcement will be made in June at CAEP2017 in Whistler, BC.

 

On behalf of the CAEP Research Committee, I am pleased to congratulate you on winning a CAEP 2017 Resident Research Abstract Award, for your abstract titled “Does point of care ultrasound improve resuscitation markers in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial.” Dr. Jeff Parry, CAEP Research Committee Chair.

Dr. Luke Taylor follows in the footsteps of Dr Kyle McGivery and Nicole Beckett who both won awards at CAEP 2016 in Quebec City.

Registration is now open for CAEP 2017 

Continue Reading