Emergency Department Urosepsis and Abdominal Imaging

Introduction Insufficient attention has been directed towards urosepsis. Notably, no protocols or clinical decision rules currently exist outlining the appropriate use of imaging in uroseptic patients. The primary objective of our study was to retrospectively evaluate uroseptic emergency department (ED) patients who underwent abdominal imaging, to report the proportion of patients with imaging findings necessitating emergent surgical consultation. Methods We retrospectively identified 1142 patients ≥ 18 years of age that presented to the ED from January 2009 to December 2012 with ICD9 code indicative of urosepsis. All included patients underwent ED-ordered abdominal computerized tomography (CT) or retroperitoneal ultrasound (US). Imaging and urinalysis (UA) results were categorized. We report proportions with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results Of 1142 patients, we excluded 80 for neg UA, 167 for < 2 SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome), 320 for positive blood cultures, and 37 for incomplete data. This yielded 538 patients which the authors reviewed the results of the CT or US to determine the proportion who required emergent surgical consultation and who underwent surgical or interventional procedure. There were 243 (45%) that had CT or US results that necessitated emergency surgical consultation, of those 180 (33%) underwent surgical or interventional procedure. Similar rates of emergency surgical consultation occurred when sub-divided by positive versus equivocal UA, with 43% and 47%, respectively. Conclusions Forty-five percent of our abdominally imaged urosepsis cohort had imaging findings that necessitated emergent surgical consultation, with a similar proportion in the subset with positive versus equivocal UA. The utility of abdominal imaging in this population should be studied prospectively.