Literature DB >> 15253733

Clinical implications of abundant calcium phosphate in routinely analyzed kidney stones.

Joan H Parks1, Elaine M Worcester, Fredric L Coe, Andrew P Evan, James E Lingeman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To better portray the clinical phenotype of kidney stone patients with high calcium phosphate (CaP) stone abundance, we present here clinical and laboratory findings of large numbers of stone formers (SF) with stone CaP ranging from 0% to 100%. Our purpose was to inform clinicians and highlight areas that seem to deserve further research.
METHODS: We calculated average percent CaP (CaP%) in all stones of 1201 patients, and classified them into CaOx (N= 1011) or CaP (N= 190). Sex differences, stone formation rates, urine stone risk factors, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatments, and relapse during treatment were quantified in relation to stone CaP content.
RESULTS: CaP% has risen for three decades, especially among women. ESWL rates adjusted for numbers of stones and duration of stone disease were higher in CaP SF (0.6 vs. 1.86 and 0.73 vs. 1.82, CaOx vs. CaP, men and women, respectively, P < 0.001), and especially when stones contained brushite (2.90 vs. 1.02 and 3.11 vs. 1.35, brushite vs. not, males and females, respectively, P < 0.001). Urine pH and CaP supersaturation rose in proportion to CaP% in a dose response manner. Relapse rates of CaP and CaOx SF did not differ, and both did well with medical prevention.
CONCLUSION: Stone CaP% has risen for three decades. CaP SF, particularly with brushite stones, receive more ESWL treatments than CaOx SF, not explained by stone number or duration of stone disease. Urine supersaturations explain the high CaP%. High CaP% does not hamper medical stone prevention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15253733     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00803.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kidney Int        ISSN: 0085-2538            Impact factor:   10.612


  75 in total

1.  Arguments for a comprehensive metabolic evaluation of the first-time stone former.

Authors:  Ryan F Paterson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Detection of significant variation in acoustic output of an electromagnetic lithotriptor.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; R Jason Vonderhaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  The acute and long-term adverse effects of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.299

4.  Differentiating calcium oxalate and hydroxyapatite stones in vivo using dual-energy CT and urine supersaturation and pH values.

Authors:  Yu Liu; Mingliang Qu; Rickey E Carter; Shuai Leng; Juan Carlos Ramirez-Giraldo; Giselle Jaramillo; Amy E Krambeck; John C Lieske; Terri J Vrtiska; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 5.  Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Elaine M Worcester; Fredric L Coe
Journal:  Prim Care       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.907

Review 6.  Kidney stone disease.

Authors:  Fredric L Coe; Andrew Evan; Elaine Worcester
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 14.808

7.  Impact of Potassium Citrate vs Citric Acid on Urinary Stone Risk in Calcium Phosphate Stone Formers.

Authors:  Steeve Doizi; John R Poindexter; Margaret S Pearle; Francisco Blanco; Orson W Moe; Khashayar Sakhaee; Naim M Maalouf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Recurrence rates of urinary calculi according to stone composition and morphology.

Authors:  Michel Daudon; Paul Jungers; Dominique Bazin; James C Williams
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Urine pH in renal calcium stone formers who do and do not increase stone phosphate content with time.

Authors:  Joan H Parks; Fredric L Coe; Andrew P Evan; Elaine M Worcester
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2008-07-28       Impact factor: 5.992

Review 10.  Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.

Authors:  James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; Ehud Gnessin; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.