Burden and distribution of monosodium urate deposition in patients with hyperuricemia and gout: a cross-sectional Chinese population-based dual-energy CT study

BACKGROUND: To investigate the distribution and burden of monosodium urate (MSU) deposition in hyperuricemia and gout patients with dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). METHODS: A total of 1,936 consecutive patients from January 1, 2009, to September 15, 2017, underwent DECT examinations in Jinling Hospital. Of these, 1,294 patients were excluded due to other clinical diagnoses (n=1,041), inappropriate locations (n=82), poor-quality images (n=105), training cases (n=30) and duplicated data (n=36). Finally, 642 patients were included in this study. We retrospectively analyzed 1,127 DECT examinations in 642 consecutive patients (hyperuricemia group, n=121; gout group, n=521) and recorded the volume and number of MSU deposits. For each anatomical location, we recorded MSU deposition in the soft tissue and joint cavity. MSU deposition was analyzed and compared between groups. For normally distributed data, independent sample t-tests were used for comparison between the two groups. The independent samples nonparametric test was used to analyze nonnormally distributed data. RESULTS: (I) The burden of MSU deposition in the gout group {volume [0.14 (0.04–1.36)] and numbers [10.00 (5.00–19.00)]} was significantly higher than that {volume [0.08 (0.02–0.47), P=0.003] and numbers [9.50 (2.00–16.00), P=0.01]} in the hyperuricemia group. (II) The burden of MSU deposition in the knees {volume [0.24 (0.01–1.79), P=0.002] and quantity [6.00 (2.00–12.00), P=0.04]} and feet {volume [0.10 (0.04–0.66)] and number [9.00 (5.00–15.00)]} was significantly higher in the gout group than those {knees: the volume [0.03 (0.00–0.27), P=0.002] and the quantity [4.00 (0.00–9.00), P=0.04]; feet: the volume [0.07 (0.02–0.19), P=0.003)] and number [8.00 (2.25–12.00), P=0.04]} in the hyperuricemia group, respectively. (III) In the hyperuricemia group, the volume of MSU deposition was significantly higher in the soft tissues of the knee (0.022±0.042) and ankle (0.062±0.305) than in those (knee: 0.001±0.005, P=0.02; ankle: 0.027±0.234, P=0.02) in the joint cavity. CONCLUSIONS: Although subclinical urate deposition can occur in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia, the burden of urate deposition is greater in patients with symptomatic gout, and the distribution is more pronounced in the foot/knee. Thus, more effective patient management and monitoring can be achieved by measuring the burden of MSU deposits in the patient’s feet/knees. These data suggest that a threshold for urate crystal volume at typical sites may be required before symptomatic disease develops.