Utility of Peritoneal Scintigraphy in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: One Center Experience

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the RRT of choice in 15% of patients with CKD and has multiple advantages over hemodialysis. PD leaks can prompt technique failure and dropout. Use of peritoneal scintigraphy (PS) for diagnosis of PD leaks has declined in favor of more complex and expensive tests. We analyzed the utility of PS for PD leak diagnosis in our center.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed all PS done in our center from January 2000 until December 2018, inclusive, in all patients on PD with a suspected dialysate leak.

Results

A total of 39 PS procedures were done in 36 patients on PD in the study period. Of those, 81% were male and 11% had CKD due to polycystic kidney disease. During this period, 23 leaks were diagnosed, showing an incidence of 6% (three episodes per patient per year). In all cases with negative PS, other tests did not confirm a peritoneal dialysate leak.

Conclusions

PS is a safe, inexpensive, reproducible, and highly effective diagnostic tool for peritoneal dialysate leaks that allows nephrologists to tailor or stop PD therapy if required. In our opinion, it should be the first-line imaging test to diagnose PD leaks with minimum exposure to radiation, contrast, or other substances that could irritate the peritoneal membrane. We believe PS should be considered as the initial test of choice to diagnose this PD complication as soon as possible, minimizing technique failure and dropout due to leaks.

Appropriate use of medical imaging in two Spanish public hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the appropriateness of medical imaging examinations involving radiation and to estimate the effective radiation dose and costs associated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective study.

SETTING

Two Spanish public tertiary hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

2022 medical imaging tests were extracted from the radiology information system in February and March of 2014. MRI and ultrasound examinations were excluded.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Five outcomes were set independently by at least two researchers according to four guidelines: (1) appropriate; (2) inappropriate; (3) inappropriate due to repetition, if the timing to carry out next diagnostic tests was incorrect according to guidelines; (4) not adequately justified, if the referral form did not include enough clinical information to allow us to understand the patient's clinical condition; and (5) not included in the guidelines, if the referral could not be matched to a clinical scenario described in the guidelines. We estimated the prevalence of the five categories according to relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables and the effective radiation dose and costs for each category.

RESULTS

Approximately half of the imaging tests were deemed as appropriate (967, 47.8%) while one-third (634, 31.4%) were considered inappropriate. 19.6% of the effective dose and 25.2% of the cost were associated with inappropriate tests. Women were less likely than men to have an imaging test classified as appropriate (adjusted OR 0.70,95% CI 0.57 to 0.86). Imaging tests requested by general practitioners were less likely to be considered appropriate than those requested by central services (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93). Mammography and CT were more likely to be appropriate than conventional X-rays.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant frequency of inappropriateness, which resulted in a high percentage of associated effective radiation dose. Percentage of inappropriateness depends on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics such as sex, age, referral physician and medical imaging test.

Evaluation of clinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure: findings from a mixed-methods investigation (survey and qualitative study)

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of initiatives aiming to increase clinician awareness of radiation exposure; to explore the challenges they face when communicating with patients; to study what they think is the most appropriate way of communicating the long-term potential risks of medical radiological exposure to patients.

DESIGN

A quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a survey and focal groups.

SETTING

San Juan Hospital and Dr Peset Hospital (Southeast Spain) and clinicians from Spanish scientific societies.

PARTICIPANTS

The surveys were answered (a) in person (216: all the radiologists (30), urologists (14) and surgeons (44) working at both participant hospitals; a sample of general practitioners from the catchment area of one hospital (45), and a consecutive sample of radiologists attending a scientific meeting (60)) or (b) electronically through Spanish scientific societies (299: radiologists (45), pneumologists (123), haematologists (75) and surgeons (40)). Clinicians were not randomly selected and thus the results are limited by the diligence of the individuals filling out the survey.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure, and what they considered most appropriate for communicating information to patients.

RESULTS

Nearly 80% of the clinicians surveyed had never heard of the European recommendations. Fewer than 20% of the clinicians surveyed identified correctly the radiation equivalence dose of intravenous urography or barium enema. It was reported by 31.7% that they inform patients about the long-term potential risks of ionising radiation. All participants agreed that the most appropriate way to present information is a table with a list of imaging tests and their corresponding radiation equivalence dose in terms of chest X-rays and background radiation exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical radiological exposure is frequently underestimated and rarely explained to patients. With a clear understanding of medical radiological exposure and proper communication tools, clinicians will be able to accurately inform patients.