Renal stones on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT: does intravenous contrast interfere with detection?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：R. Joshua Dym (1)
  Dameon R. Duncan (1)
  Michael Spektor (2)
  Hillel W. Cohen (3)
  Meir H. Scheinfeld (1)
  
• 关键词：Renal stones ; Calculi ; CT ; Intravenous contrast ; Iodinated contrast ; Emergency imaging
• 刊名：Abdominal Imaging
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：June 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：39
• 期：3
• 页码：526-532
• 全文大小：
• 参考文献：1. Kambadakone AR, Eisner BH, Catalano OA, Sahani DV (2010) New and evolving concepts in the imaging and management of urolithiasis: urologists-perspective. Radiographics 30(3):603-23 CrossRef
  2. Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, et al. (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13(2):418-24
  3. Abujudeh HH, Kaewlai R, McMahon PM, et al. (2011) Abdominopelvic CT increases diagnostic certainty and guide management decisions: a prospective investigation of 584 patients in a large academic medical center. AJR 196(2):238-43 CrossRef
  4. American College of Radiology (2011) Acute onset flank pain—suspicion of stone disease. ACR Appropriateness Criteria^?. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/AppCriteria/Diagnostic/AcuteOnsetFlankPainSuspicionStoneDisease.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2013
  5. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR 166(1):97-01 CrossRef
  6. Chen MY, Zagoria RJ, Saunders HS, Dyer RB (1999) Trends in the use of unenhanced helical CT for acute urinary colic. AJR 173:1447-450 CrossRef
  7. Tamm EP, Silverman PM, Shuman WP (2003) Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus. Radiology 228(2):319-29 CrossRef
  8. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, et al. (1998) The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol 159:735-40 CrossRef
  9. American College of Radiology (2013) Appropriateness criteria—diagnostic imaging topics. ACR Appropriateness Criteria^?. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria/Diagnostic. Accessed 29 July 2013
  10. Saunders H, Dyer R, Shifrin R, et al. (1995) The CT nephrogram: implications for evaluation of urinary tract disease. Radiographics 15:1069-085 CrossRef
  11. Cheng PM, Moin P, Dunn MD, Boswell WD, Duddalwar VA (2012) What the radiologist needs to know about urolithiasis: part 2–CT findings, reporting, and treatment. AJR 198(6):W548–W554 CrossRef
  12. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs on helical unenhanced CT. AJR 167:1109-113 CrossRef
  13. Heneghan JH, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC (1997) Soft-tissue “rim-sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 202:709-11
  14. Furlan A, Federle MP, Yealy DM, Averch TD, Pealer K (2008) Nonobstructing renal stones on unenhanced CT: a real cause for renal colic? AJR 190:W125–W127 CrossRef
  15. Andersson L, Sylvén M (1983) Small renal caliceal calculi as a cause of pain. J Urol 130:752-53
  16. Brandt B, Ostri P, Lange P, Kvist Kristensen J (1993) Painful caliceal calculi. The treatment of small nonobstructing caliceal calculi in patients with symptoms. Scand J Urol Nephrol 27:75-6 CrossRef
  17. Mee SL, Thuroff JW (1988) Small caliceal stones: is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy justified? J Urol 139:908-10
  18. Brannen GE, Bush WH, Lewis GP (1986) Caliceal calculi. J Urol 135:1142-145
  19. Lau PC, Norman RW (1997) When is ESWL of small calyceal stones indicated? Can J Urol 4:413-15
  20. Schiff SF, Dretler SP (1988) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Endourol 2:31-4 CrossRef
  21. Jura YH, Lahey S, Eisner BH, Dretler SP (2013) Ureteroscopic treatment of patients with small, painful, non-obstructing renal stones: the small stone syndrome. Clin Nephrol 79(1):45-9 CrossRef
  22. Sica GT (2006) Bias in research studies. Radiology 238(3):780-89 CrossRef
  23. Memarsadeghi M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Prokop M, et al. (2007) Unenhanced MDCT in patients with suspected urinary stone disease: do coronal reformations improve diagnostic performance? AJR 189(2):W60–W64 CrossRef
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159-74 CrossRef
  25. Kundel HL, Polansky M (2003) Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228(2):303-08 CrossRef
  26. Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC (2002) Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR 178(1):101-03 CrossRef
  27. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178(6):2418-434 CrossRef
  28. Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S (2004) Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics 24(suppl 1):S11–S28 CrossRef
  29. Krinsky G (1996) Unenhanced helical CT in patients with acute flank pain and renal infarction: the need for contrast material in selected cases. AJR 167:282-83 CrossRef
  30. Talner L, Vaughan M (2003) Nonobstructive renal causes of flank pain: findings on noncontrast helical CT (CT KUB). Abdom Imaging 28:210-16 CrossRef
  31. Dyer R, DiSantis DJ, McClennan BL (2008) Simplified imaging approach for evaluation of the solid renal mass in adults. Radiology 247:331-42 CrossRef
  32. Spencer BA, Wood BJ, Dretler SP (2000) Helical CT and ureteral colic. Urol Clin N Am 27(2):231-41 CrossRef
  33. Berkenblit R, Hoenig DM, Lerer D, Moses M, Minsky L (2013) Comparison of 0.625-mm source computed tomographic images versus 5-mm thick reconstructed images in the evaluation for renal calculi in at-risk patients. J Endourol 27(2):238-41 CrossRef
  34. Bilezikian JP, Potts JT Jr, Fuleihan G-H, et al. (2002) Summary statement from a workshop on asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism: a perspective for the 21st century. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:5353-361 CrossRef
  35. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, et al. (2013) Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 267(1):106-18 CrossRef
  36. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Comin J, et al. (2013) Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast medium administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 267(1):119-28 CrossRef
  37. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, et al. (2013) Contrast material–induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology 267(1):94-05 CrossRef
  38. Newhouse JH, RoyChoudhury A (2013) Quantitating contrast medium-induced nephropathy: controlling the controls. Radiology 267(1):4- CrossRef
  39. Amato E, Salamone I, Naso S, et al. (2013) Can contrast media increase organ doses in CT examinations? A clinical study. AJR 200:1288-293 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：R. Joshua Dym (1)
  Dameon R. Duncan (1)
  Michael Spektor (2)
  Hillel W. Cohen (3)
  Meir H. Scheinfeld (1)
  
  1. Department of Radiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, 111 E 210th St, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA
  2. Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA
  3. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Ave, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA
  
• ISSN：1432-0509

文摘

Purpose To determine the sensitivity of portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT for the detection of renal stones. Methods This retrospective study included 97 CT examinations of the abdomen without and with intravenous contrast, including 85 (87.6%) examinations with at least one renal stone on the “gold standard-noncontrast images, as scored by a single radiologist. Three other radiologists each independently reviewed only the contrast-enhanced images from all 97 examinations and recorded all renal stones. Reviewer sensitivity for stones was categorized by stone diameter. Reviewer sensitivity and specificity for stone disease were also calculated on a per-kidney basis. Results The 97 cases included a total of 238 stones ??mm, with a mean (±SD) of 1.2?±?1.9 stones per kidney and a stone diameter of 3.5?±?3.0?mm. Pooling data for the three reviewers, sensitivity for all stones was 81%; sensitivity for stones ?, ?, ?, and ??mm was 88%, 95%, 99%, and 98%, respectively. Sensitivity for stone disease on a per-kidney basis was 94% when considering all stones; when considering only stones ?, ?, and ??mm, sensitivity was 96%, 99%, and 100%, respectively. Specificity for stone disease on a per-kidney basis was 98% overall, 99% when considering only stones ??mm, and 100% when considering only stones ??mm. Conclusion Contrast-enhanced CT is highly sensitive for the detection of renal stones ??mm in diameter and less sensitive for smaller stones. In cases where the clinical diagnosis is uncertain and performance of a CT examination is being contemplated, intravenous contrast utilization would allow assessment for stone disease while also optimizing evaluation for other conditions.