Definitions for the body of evidence strength (grade A, B, or C), the strength of the recommendations (Standard, Recommendation, Option), and for statements labeled as Clinical Principle and Expert Opinion are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.
Diagnostic and Work-up Framework
The guideline statements below are organized to follow and provide the rationale for the accompanying algorithm (available from the American Urological Association, Inc. (AUA) Web site ).
Guideline Statement 1. Asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) is defined as three or greater red blood cells per high powered field (RBC/HPF) on a properly collected urinary specimen in the absence of an obvious benign cause. A positive dipstick does not define AMH, and evaluation should be based solely on findings from microscopic examination of urinary sediment and not on a dipstick reading. A positive dipstick reading merits microscopic examination to confirm or refute the diagnosis of AMH. Expert Opinion
Guideline Statement 2. The assessment of the asymptomatic microhematuria patient should include a careful history, physical examination, and laboratory examination to rule out causes of AMH such as infection, menstruation, vigorous exercise, medical renal disease, viral illness, trauma, or recent urological procedures. Clinical Principle
Guideline Statement 3. Once benign causes have been ruled out, the presence of asymptomatic microhematuria should prompt urologic evaluation. Recommendation (Evidence strength – Grade C; Benefits outweigh risks/burdens)
Guideline Statement 4. At the initial evaluation, an estimate of renal function should be obtained (may include calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen [BUN]) because intrinsic renal disease may have implications for renal related risk during the evaluation and management of patients with AMH. Clinical Principle
Guideline Statement 5. The presence of dysmorphic red blood cells, proteinuria, cellular casts, and/or renal insufficiency or any other clinical indicator suspicious for renal parenchymal disease warrants concurrent nephrologic workup but does not preclude the need for urologic evaluation. Recommendation (Evidence strength – Grade C; Benefits outweigh risks/burdens)
Guideline Statement 6. Microhematuria that occurs in patients who are taking anti-coagulants requires urologic evaluation and nephrologic evaluation regardless of the type or level of anti-coagulation therapy. Recommendation Discussion. (Evidence strength – Grade C; Benefits outweigh risks/burdens)
Guideline Statement 7. For the urologic evaluation of asymptomatic microhematuria, cystoscopy should be performed on all patients aged 35 years and older. Recommendation Discussion. (Evidence strength – Grade C; Benefits outweigh risks/burdens)
Guideline Statement 8. In patients younger than age 35 years, cystoscopy may be performed at the physician's discretion. Option (Evidence strength – Grade C; Balance between benefits and risks/burdens unclear)
Guideline Statement 9. Cystoscopy should be performed on all AMH patients who present with risk factors for urinary tract malignancies (e.g., history of irritative voiding symptoms, current or past tobacco use, chemical exposures) regardless of age. Clinical Principle
Guideline Statement 10. The initial evaluation for AMH should include a radiologic evaluation. Multi-phasic computed tomography (CT) urography (without and with intravenous [IV] contrast), including sufficient phases to evaluate the renal parenchyma to rule out a renal mass and an excretory phase to evaluate the urothelium of the upper tracts, is the imaging procedure of choice because it has the highest sensitivity and specificity for imaging the upper tracts. Recommendation (Evidence strength – Grade C; Benefits outweigh risks/burdens)
Guideline Statement 11. For patients with relative or absolute contraindications that preclude use of multiphasic CT (such as renal insufficiency, iodinated contrast allergy, pregnancy), magnetic resonance urography (MRU) (without/with intravenous contrast) is an acceptable alternative imaging approach. Option (Evidence strength – Grade C; Balance between benefits and risks/burdens unclear)
Guideline Statement 12. For patients with relative or absolute contraindications that preclude use of multiphasic CT (such as renal insufficiency, iodinated contrast allergy, pregnancy) where collecting system detail is deemed necessary, combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with retrograde pyelograms (RPGs) provides alternative evaluation of the entire upper tracts. Expert Opinion
Guideline Statement 13. For patients with relative or absolute contraindications that preclude use of multiphasic CT (such as renal insufficiency, iodinated contrast allergy) and MRI (such as presence of metal in the body) where collecting system detail is deemed necessary, combining non-contrast CT or renal ultrasound with RPGs provides alternative evaluation of the entire upper tracts. Expert Opinion
Guideline Statement 14. The use of urine cytology and urine markers (Nuclear Matrix Protein 22 [NMP22], bladder tumor antigen [BTA]-stat, and UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization assay [FISH]) is NOT recommended as a part of the routine evaluation of the asymptomatic microhematuria patient. Recommendation (Evidence strength – Grade C; Risks/burdens outweigh benefits)
Guideline Statement 15. In patients with microhematuria present following a negative work up or those with other risk factors for carcinoma in situ (e.g., irritative voiding symptoms, current or past tobacco use, chemical exposures), cytology may be useful. Option (Evidence strength – Grade C; Balance between benefits and risks/burdens uncertain)
Guideline Statement 16. Blue light cystoscopy should not be used in the evaluation of patients with asymptomatic microhematuria. Recommendation (Evidence strength – Grade C; Risks/burdens outweigh benefits)
Guideline Statement 17. If a patient with a history of persistent asymptomatic microhematuria has two consecutive negative annual urinalyses (one per year for two years from the time of initial evaluation or beyond), then no further urinalyses for the purpose of evaluation of AMH are necessary. Expert Opinion
Guideline Statement 18. For persistent asymptomatic microhematuria after negative urologic workup, yearly urinalyses should be conducted. Recommendation (Evidence strength – Grade C; Benefits outweigh risks/burdens)
Guideline Statement 19. For persistent or recurrent asymptomatic microhematuria after initial negative urologic work-up, repeat evaluation within three to five years should be considered. Expert Opinion
Definitions:
Body of Evidence Strength
Grade A: Well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or exceptionally strong observational studies
Grade B: RCTs with some weaknesses of procedure or generalizability or generally strong observational studies
Grade C: Observational studies that are inconsistent, have small sample sizes, or have other problems that potentially confound interpretation of data
American Urological Association (AUA) Nomenclature Linking Statement Type to Evidence Strength
Standard: Directive statement that an action should (benefits outweigh risks/burdens) or should not (risks/burdens outweigh benefits) be taken based on Grade A or B evidence
Recommendation: Directive statement that an action should (benefits outweigh risks/burdens) or should not (risks/burdens outweigh benefits) be taken based on Grade C evidence
Option: Non-directive statement that leaves the decision regarding an action up to the individual clinician and patient because the balance between benefits and risks/burdens appears equal or appears uncertain based on Grade A, B, or C evidence
Clinical Principle: A statement about a component of clinical care that is widely agreed upon by urologists or other clinicians for which there may or may not be evidence in the medical literature
Expert Opinion: A statement, achieved by consensus of the Panel, that is based on members' clinical training, experience, knowledge, and judgment for which there is no evidence