Michael Ordon, Sarah Bota, Yuguang Kang, Blayne Welk
{"title":"The Impact of Timing of Definitive Intervention for Patients with Acute Renal Colic: A Population-Based Study.","authors":"Michael Ordon, Sarah Bota, Yuguang Kang, Blayne Welk","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> To determine the impact of early intervention (EI) <i>vs</i> delayed intervention/expectant management for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, utilizing linked administrative health data. Patients presenting to an ED with renal colic between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2020, were included. Patients were divided into two groups. The EI group underwent shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy within 2 weeks of presentation. The delayed intervention/expectant management (non-EI) group represented all other patients, including those who did not receive intervention. Patients were followed forward in time for 3 months in the EI group and for 4 weeks postintervention or 3 months (whichever was longer) in the non-EI group, to assess for our outcomes. The outcomes included additional ED visits, hospitalizations, or imaging studies, stent/nephrostomy insertion, and urologist/primary care visits. These outcomes were compared across the two groups using a propensity score-matched generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were 397,185 index renal colic events (after propensity score matching EI = 27,741, non-EI = 80,230). The EI group had a lower risk for additional ED visits (relative risk (RR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.72, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and hospital admissions (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.50-0.55, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with the non-EI group. Similarly, the EI group had a lower risk for stent (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71, <i>p</i> < 0.001) or nephrostomy insertion (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42-0.57, <i>p</i> < 0.001), however, there was no difference for additional imaging. The EI group had a slightly increased risk for urologist/primary care visit (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In the non-EI group, 17.31% underwent eventual intervention. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our study demonstrated a benefit to EI for those presenting with renal colic to the ED, but potentially with the risk of exposing some patients to unneeded treatment. These findings could influence practice patterns and guideline recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"708-715"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0657","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To determine the impact of early intervention (EI) vs delayed intervention/expectant management for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, utilizing linked administrative health data. Patients presenting to an ED with renal colic between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2020, were included. Patients were divided into two groups. The EI group underwent shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy within 2 weeks of presentation. The delayed intervention/expectant management (non-EI) group represented all other patients, including those who did not receive intervention. Patients were followed forward in time for 3 months in the EI group and for 4 weeks postintervention or 3 months (whichever was longer) in the non-EI group, to assess for our outcomes. The outcomes included additional ED visits, hospitalizations, or imaging studies, stent/nephrostomy insertion, and urologist/primary care visits. These outcomes were compared across the two groups using a propensity score-matched generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations. Results: There were 397,185 index renal colic events (after propensity score matching EI = 27,741, non-EI = 80,230). The EI group had a lower risk for additional ED visits (relative risk (RR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.72, p < 0.001) and hospital admissions (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.50-0.55, p < 0.001) compared with the non-EI group. Similarly, the EI group had a lower risk for stent (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71, p < 0.001) or nephrostomy insertion (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42-0.57, p < 0.001), however, there was no difference for additional imaging. The EI group had a slightly increased risk for urologist/primary care visit (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03, p < 0.001). In the non-EI group, 17.31% underwent eventual intervention. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated a benefit to EI for those presenting with renal colic to the ED, but potentially with the risk of exposing some patients to unneeded treatment. These findings could influence practice patterns and guideline recommendations.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes.
The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation.
Journal of Endourology coverage includes:
The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions
Pioneering research articles
Controversial cases in endourology
Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos
Reviews and epochs in endourology
Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.