PURPOSE: An opportunity exists to evaluate the quality of care in patients undergoing intravenous pyelogram (IVP) imaging and to define the role of IVP in the computed tomography scan era.
METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, inpatient versus outpatient setting, indication for IVP, physician/specialty who ordered IVP, and the need for subsequent imaging within a 30-day period in patients who underwent IVP from October 2007 to December 2011. Chi-square test was used to compare the number of additional radiologic examinations ordered within 30 days of the initial IVP across the different specialties ordering IVPs.
RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty patients underwent IVP imaging during the study period. The primary reason to order an IVP was the evaluation of urolithiasis/flank pain (50 %), followed by urologic evaluation after surgery (23 %). Three hundred and twenty-five patients (48 %) subsequently had an additional 547 radiologic studies within 30 days of the IVP to further evaluate their condition. Of the 325 patients undergoing additional imaging studies, 36 % had differing or additional diagnostic information noted that could change medical decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: Inferior imaging of the urologic patient by IVP leads to the acquisition of additional imaging studies to render a diagnosis. IVP has a limited clinical role, and thus, its use should be strictly limited to highly select cases.
Written by:
Hale Z, Hanna E, Miyake M, Rosser CJ. Are you the author?
College of Medicine, Florida State University, Orlando, FL, 32801, USA.
Reference: World J Urol. 2013 Apr 25. Epub ahead of print.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-013-1085-4
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 23615746
UroToday.com Stone Disease Section
