Urolitiasis en Atención Primaria: comparación de un seguimiento sistemático frente a la práctica habitual

Abstract

ObjectiveThe implementation of preventive clinical actions in Primary Care would allow to act on the high incidence of urolithiasis and the correctable risk factors. This pilot study compared a systematic follow-up (SFU) versus a regular follow-up (RFU) in terms of feasibility, safety and clinical outcomes. Materials and methodsWe conducted a multicentric and controlled pilot study in 30 patients comparing SFU versus RFU. Patients followed allocation concealment by an independent blocked computer-generated list. We defined “success” if feasibility objectives were matched including recruitment rate, follow-up compliance, completion and staff resources. Clinic variables (pain and fever), analytics (blood and urine) and image techniques (echography and radiography) were recorded at 10, 45 and 90 days in SFU and at 3 months in RFU. The SFU group received nutritional and analgesic recommendations. Preliminary clinical outcomes were compared and complications were recorded in each group. ResultsThe feasibility objectives were matched as follows: 94.1% of recruitment rate, 5.9% refused to participate, 10 patients/month were recruited, 93.1% of follow-up compliance and 90% of completion. No clinical differences were found between groups. There was a recurrence in the RFU group. ConclusionsThe feasibility objectives were matched except those related to human resources. Clinical outcomes did not favour any group or contraindicate the development of a future clinical trial.