急性肾绞痛患者决定性干预时机的影响:一项基于人群的研究。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-02 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0657
Michael Ordon, Sarah Bota, Yuguang Kang, Blayne Welk
{"title":"急性肾绞痛患者决定性干预时机的影响:一项基于人群的研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:探讨早期干预(EI)对急诊科(ED)肾绞痛患者延迟干预/期待治疗的影响。方法:我们在加拿大安大略省进行了一项基于人群的队列研究,利用相关的行政卫生数据。纳入了2010年4月1日至2020年6月30日期间因肾绞痛就诊ED的患者。患者分为两组。EI组在就诊后2周内行冲击波碎石、输尿管镜或经皮肾镜取石术。延迟干预/期望管理(非ei)组代表所有其他患者,包括未接受干预的患者。EI组随访患者3个月,非EI组随访患者干预后4周或干预后3个月(以较长者为准),以评估我们的结果。结果包括额外的急诊科就诊、住院或影像学检查、支架/肾造口置入以及泌尿科医生/初级保健就诊。使用倾向分数匹配的广义线性模型与广义估计方程比较两组的这些结果。结果:共有397,185例肾绞痛事件(经倾向评分匹配EI = 27,741,非EI = 80,230)。与非EI组相比,EI组有较低的额外ED就诊风险(相对风险(RR): 0.70, 95%可信区间(CI): 0.68-0.72, p < 0.001)和住院风险(RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.50-0.55, p < 0.001)。同样,EI组支架置入(RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71, p < 0.001)或肾造口置入(RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42-0.57, p < 0.001)的风险较低,但在附加影像学检查方面没有差异。EI组就诊泌尿科医生/初级保健的风险略有增加(RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03, p < 0.001)。在非ei组中,17.31%接受了最终干预。结论:我们的研究表明EI对肾绞痛患者有好处,但也有可能使一些患者接受不必要的治疗。这些发现可能会影响实践模式和指南建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Timing of Definitive Intervention for Patients with Acute Renal Colic: A Population-Based Study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信