Dual-head lithotripsy in synchronous mode: acute effect on renal function and morphology in the pig.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dual-head lithotripsy on renal function and morphology in a pig model of shockwave (SW) injury, as lithotripters with two shock heads are now available for treating patients, but little information is available with which to judge the safety of treatment with dual pulses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dual-head electrohydraulic lithotripter (Duet, Direx Corp., Natick, MA, USA) was used to treat the lower renal pole of anaesthetized pigs with a clinical dose of SWs (2400 dual SWs; 10 kidneys) delivered in synchronous mode, i.e. both heads fired simultaneously. For comparison, pigs were treated with either 2400 SWs (12 kidneys) or 4800 SWs (eight) with a conventional electrohydraulic lithotripter (HM3, Dornier, Wessling, Germany).
RESULTS: Dual-pulse SW treatment with the Duet lithotripter caused a decline in the mean (sd) glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 4.1 (1.9) mL/min, with a trend for the effective renal plasma flow (RPF), at 31 (19) mL/min, to also decrease. These changes in renal haemodynamics were similar to the decreases in GFR and RPF in response to treatment with the HM3 lithotripter with 2400 SWs, at 4.8 (0.8) and 32 (10) mL/min, respectively, or 4800 SWs, at 5.4 (1.0) and 68 (14) mL/min, respectively. Linear association analysis showed that the functional response to dual-pulse SWs was more variable than with conventional SWs. Morphological quantification of kidney damage (expressed as a percentage of functional renal volume, FRV) showed that tissue injury with 2400 paired SWs with the Duet, at 0.96 (0.39)% FRV, was similar to injury produced by either 2400 single SWs, at 1.08 (0.38)% FRV, or 4800 single SWs, at 2.71 (1.02)% FRV, with the HM3. However, morphological damage was less consistent with the Duet (measurable in only five of eight kidneys) than that with the HM3 (measurable in all 12 kidneys). Acoustic output and the timing of dual SWs in synchronous mode increased in variability as the electrodes aged, affecting the amplitude and targeting of focal pressures.
CONCLUSION: With the caveat that variability in the timing of dual SWs will unpredictably alter the distribution of SW energy within the kidney, this study shows that a clinical dose of dual-head SWs delivered in synchronous mode elicits a renal response similar to, but more variable than, that with a clinical dose of SWs from a conventional electrohydraulic lithotripter.