An interventional study of Ultrasound and Standard care in Renal Colic, sponsored by Lille Catholic University. Status unknown at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-11-20.
Sponsored by Lille Catholic University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
The management of renal colic in emergency departments follows the recommendations established at the 8th consensus conference of 2008 on the management of renal colic in emergency services. It recommends the control of pain by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics, the implementation of an urinary test strip and the use of emergency imaging for compiled forms and patient with medical specificities.
Currently, two imaging techniques are recommended during an episode of renal colic:
The use of the scanner exposes the patient to large doses of radiation even if it is a low dose scanner.
In recent years, studies have been conducted to determine whether the ultrasound, particularly "point of care" ultrasound performed by an emergency physician could be an alternative in the management of renal colic. Studies show that the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound is comparable to that of the scanner. It has been found that the performance of an ultrasound by the emergency physician allows the decrease in irradiation and also in costs. In 2014,a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine emphasized that the ultrasound performed by the emergency physician would perform just as well as that performed by the radiologist and would result in a decreased time in the emergency room.
The Korean study, published in 2016 in the Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine (CEEM), despite some statistical inconsistencies, shows a significant reduction in the time of care by 74 minutes. In this context, we would like to conduct a single-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label study comparing a group of patients benefiting from point of care ultrasound versus a group of patients not benefiting from it. The goal is to determine whether the early ultrasound performed by the emergency physician by detecting expansions of the pelvicalyceal cavities reduces the time spent in the emergency department.
148 studies on the registry are indexed under Colic; 21 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 70 is below the median of 88 across 122 interventional studies indexed under Colic.
Browse Colic studies →Lille Catholic University is the lead sponsor of 111 studies on the registry; 26 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Procedure: Ultrasound
Other: Standard care
The emergency physician will perform a "point of care" ultrasound. If signs of expansions of the pelvicalyceal cavities are found, an early CT scan will follow
Standard clinical care of patients. In regards of the clinical evolution and of biological results, a CT scan could be performed by the physician.
Time between admission and discharge from the emergency room
Time frame: Day one
Patients satisfaction scale
5 questions to be answered by the patients rated on 1-10 scales being equivalent to 1 being equivalent to "no, certainly not and 10 being equivalent to "yes, certainly yes ". An overall score of 50 will be calculated to assess patient satisfaction.
Time frame: An average of 24 hours
Physician satisfaction scale
5 questions to be answered by the physicians rated on 1-10 scales being equivalent to 1 being equivalent to "no, certainly not and 10 being equivalent to "yes, certainly yes ". An overall score of 50 will be calculated to assess physician satisfaction.
Time frame: 9 months
Ultrasound diagnostic performance to detect expansions of the pelvicalyceal cavities
The diagnostic performance of the ultrasound for the detection of dilation of pyelocalicial cavities will be evaluated by sensitivity and specificity. The Gold Standard will be the result of the scanner
Time frame: 9 months
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Nov 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Lille Catholic University