Literature DB >> 11339387

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients treated with antithrombotic agents.

G Zanetti1, I Kartalas-Goumas, E Montanari, A B Federici, A Trinchieri, F Rovera, E Pisani.   

Abstract

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 1999, 749 patients underwent electromagnetic SWL. Among them, 23 patients, 19 with renal and 4 with ureteral stones, were receiving antithrombotic drugs (aspirin, ticlopidine, dipyridamole). According to the cardiologist and hematologist, we divided these patients into two groups: Group 1 had a low thromboembolic risk (previous myocardial infarction), and Group 2 had a high thromboembolic risk (aortocoronary bypass, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral occlusive arterial disease). Group 1 patients discontinued their antiplatelet therapy 8 days prior to SWL to permit a sufficient number of functioning platelets to remain. Group 2 patients suspended antiplatelet therapy, and unfractioned heparin 5000 IU tid (8 a.m., 4 p.m., and 12 p.m.) was administered for the 8 days prior to SWL. On the ninth day of withdrawal, SWL was performed in all patients. Close follow-up was performed during the postoperative period (hemoglobin, hematocrit, kidney ultrasonography, plain abdominal film). The antithrombotic therapy was restored in all patients within 10 to 14 days of withdrawal.
RESULTS: Hematomas and thromboembolic events were not observed. At 3 months' follow-up, 14 patients (61%) were stone free, 3 (13%) had <4-mm fragments, and 6 (26%) had >4-mm residual fragments.
CONCLUSION: Our schedules for the suspension or substitution of antithrombotic therapy, although tested in a small number of patients, allowed us to perform SWL without hemorrhagic or thromboembolic complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11339387     DOI: 10.1089/089277901750161656

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  7 in total

1.  CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Shock wave lithotripsy in patients requiring anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents.

Authors:  Bader Alsaikhan; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  A review study to evaluate holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy with flexible ureteroscopy in patients on ongoing oral anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  Bulent Altay; Bulent Erkurt; Selami Albayrak
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2017-07-22       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 4.  Thromboprophylaxis and bleeding diathesis in minimally invasive stone surgery.

Authors:  Andreas Bourdoumis; Theodora Stasinou; Stefanos Kachrilas; Athanasios G Papatsoris; Noor Buchholz; Junaid Masood
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?

Authors:  Christian G Chaussy; Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-11-25       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 6.  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Noor Buchholz; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-07-24

7.  Shock-wave lithotripsy in the elderly: Safety, efficacy and special considerations.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; D Lamrani; Konstantinos Moraitis; Hassan Wazait; Junaid Masood; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2011-05-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.