Literature DB >> 31001912

Factors associated with spontaneous stone passage in a contemporary cohort of patients presenting with acute ureteric colic: results from the Multi-centre cohort study evaluating the role of Inflammatory Markers In patients presenting with acute ureteric Colic (MIMIC) study.

Taimur T Shah1,2,3,4, Chuanyu Gao1, Max Peters5, Todd Manning6, Sophia Cashman1, Arjun Nambiar1, Marcus Cumberbatch1,7, Ben Lamb1, Anthony Peacock8, Marieke J Van Son5, Peter S N van Rossum5, Robert Pickard9, Paul Erotocritou10, Daron Smith11, Veeru Kasivisvanathan1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship of white blood cell count (WBC) and other routinely collected inflammatory and clinical markers including stone size, stone position, and medical expulsive therapy use (MET), with spontaneous stone passage (SSP) in a large contemporary cohort of patients with acute ureteric colic, as there are conflicting data on the role of WBC and other inflammatory markers in SSP in patients with acute ureteric colic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicentre retrospective cohort study coordinated by the British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST) Research Collaborative at 71 secondary care hospitals across four countries (UK, Republic of Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand). In all, 4170 patients presented with acute ureteric colic and a computed tomography confirmed single ureteric stone. Our primary outcome measure was SSP, as defined by the absence of need for intervention to assist stone passage (SP). Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between key patient factors and SSP.
RESULTS: In all, 2518 patients were discharged with conservative management and had further follow-up with a SSP rate of 74% (n = 1874/2518). Sepsis after discharge with conservative management was reported in 0.6% (n = 16/2518). On multivariable analysis neither WBC, neutrophils count, nor C-reactive protein (CRP) predicted SSP, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.04, P = 0.38), 1.06 (95% CI 0.99-1.13, P = 0.1) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00, P = 0.17), respectively. MET also did not predict SSP (adjusted OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.61). However, stone size and stone position were significant predictors. SSP for stones <5 mm was 89% (95% CI 87-90) compared to 49% (95% CI 44-53) for stones ≥5-7 mm, and 29% (95% CI 23-36) for stones >7 mm. For stones in the upper ureter the SSP rate was 52% (95% CI 48-56), middle ureter was 70% (95% CI 64-76), and lower ureter was 83% (95% CI 81-85).
CONCLUSION: In contrast to the previously published literature, we found that in patients with acute ureteric colic who are discharged with initial conservative management neither WBC, neutrophil count, nor CRP, helps determine the likelihood of SSP. We also found no overall benefit from the use of MET. Stone size and position are important predictors and our present findings represent the most comprehensive SP rates for each millimetre increase in stone size from a large contemporary cohort adjusting for key potential confounders. We anticipate that these data will aid clinicians managing patients with acute ureteric colic and help guide management decisions and the need for intervention.
© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990CRPzzm321990; #EndoUrology; #UroStone; inflammatory markers; medically expulsive therapy; spontaneous stone passage; urolithiasis; white blood cell

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31001912     DOI: 10.1111/bju.14777

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  7 in total

1.  Acupuncture versus Lornoxicam in the Treatment of Acute Renal Colic: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Xiaohua Zhang; Xinguo Liu; Qiongxiang Ye; Xunbao Wang; Jinjun Chen; Zhiyong Wang; Pengfei Zhao; Baozhou Tao; Guoping Xu; Wanfeng Xu; Kan Wu; Yao Xiao; Li Yang; Junqiang Tian; Juan Wang; Zhilong Dong; Zhiping Wang
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.133

2.  Does volume matter? Incorporating estimated stone volume in a nomogram to predict ureteral stone passage.

Authors:  Nassib Abou Heidar; Muhieddine Labban; David-Dan Nguyen; Adnan El-Achkar; Mazen Mansour; Naeem Bhojani; Rami Nasr
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  A machine learning model for predicting surgical intervention in renal colic due to ureteral stone(s) < 5 mm.

Authors:  Miki Haifler; Nir Kleinmann; Rennen Haramaty; Dorit E Zilberman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?

Authors:  Igal Shpunt; Etay Elbaz; Yuval Avda; Jonathan Modai; Dan Leibovici; Brian Berkowitz; Yaniv Shilo
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2021-12-29

5.  Role of inflammatory markers and their trends in predicting the outcome of medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric calculus.

Authors:  Vasantharaja Ramasamy; P Aarthy; Vivek Sharma; Avinash Pratap Singh Thakur
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2021-12-28

6.  Alpha-Blocker Prescribing Trends for Ureteral Stones: A Single-Centre Study.

Authors:  Liang G Qu; Garson Chan; Johan Gani
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2022-08-29

7.  Clinical and Radiological Predictors of Early Intervention in Acute Ureteral Colic.

Authors:  Faris Abushamma; Mahfouz Ktaifan; Abdoh Abdallah; Mohammad Alkarajeh; Mosab Maree; Ahmed Awadghanem; Ahmad Jaradat; Amir Aghbar; Sa'ed H Zyoud; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-07-30
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.