Effects of diuretic administration on outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted for investigating the effect of diuretics on the outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of urinary stones. We performed searches of PubMed, Web of science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases from inception to November 2019. RCTs were selected for assessing the effects of diuretics on fragmentation and clearance of urinary stones. The search strategy and study selection process were performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, intervention groups experienced significant improvements in fragmentation compared with the control groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.03, P = 0.02). However, stone clearance did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.97-1.56, P = 0.08). The total numbers of shocks and sessions required were significantly reduced by the use of diuretics. Diuretics significantly enhance stone fragmentation for patients undergoing SWL. However, the improvement in stone clearance appears to be insignificant.

Introduction

Urinary stone disease is the third-most common disease of the urinary tract worldwide, and it is reported to affect 1%–5% of the population of Asia, 5%–9% of the population of Europe, and 13% of the population of North America. Along with its high prevalence, the condition is also reported to have a high rate of recurrence; 50% within 5–10 years and 75% within 20 years [1]. Patients with kidney stones often suffer from short-term symptoms including acute renal colic pain, nausea, vomiting, and hematuria, as well as long-term complications such as chronic urinary tract obstruction, hydronephrosis, and renal damage [2]. Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) was originally introduced in clinical practice in 1983, and it has since become widely accepted as the gold standard therapy for kidney stones of under 2 cm of diameter [3]. Compared with endoscopic and open surgical procedures, SWL is a minimally invasive procedure with reduced requirements for anesthesia; therefore it is associated with high rates of patient acceptance [4]. However, because of the nature of SWL, results are not immediate, and some patients require repeat sessions for removing residual stone fragments, thus increasing the cost and possibility of complications. Moreover, 10%–20% of fragmented stones will grow in size over time [5], resulting in severe pain that can significantly affect the quality of life and vocational responsibilities [6].

Adjuvant interventions are urgently required for improving the results of SWL in terms of residual stone removal and overall efficacy. For reducing the necessity of more invasive treatments such as ureteroscopy, less-invasive interventions including inversion therapy, mechanical percussion, and drug therapy have been explored [7]. Among these, pharmacotherapy is considered as a promising approach, with medicines such as calcium channel blockers, α-adrenergic blockers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and progesterone being proven to have beneficial effects on the expulsion of stones and efficacy of SWL [8-11]. However, the effects of diuretics on the success of SWL remain unclear from the present literature.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for investigating the effects of diuretic administration during SWL on outcomes. The results of this investigation may guide clinical decision-making for the administration of diuretics in the context of SWL.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [12-13]. Ethical approval and patient consent were not required because all analyses were based on previously published studies.

Literature search and selection criteria

We systematically searched several databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and the Cochrane library from inception to November 2019 with the following keywords: “diuretic,” “shock wave lithotripsy,” “furosemide,” “drug therapy,” and “urolithiasis.” The reference lists of retrieved studies and relevant reviews were hand-searched, and the process mentioned above was repeatedly performed for ensuring that all eligible studies were included.

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) RCT study design, (2) the intervention was SWL with the use of diuretics versus SWL with placebo (or with no intervention), (3) adequate reporting of data provided for analysis, and (4) availability of the entire text. Studies reported in all languages were included.

Data extraction and outcome measures

Baseline information that was extracted from the original studies included the following: first author, published year, number of patients, patient age and gender distributions, description of calculus, and detail methods for the two groups. Data were independently extracted by two investigators (W.Z.H and B.Y.J). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

The primary outcomes were stone clearance and fragmentation. Secondary outcomes were the total number of shocks and number of sessions required.

Quality assessment of individual studies

The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed according to the Jadad Scale, which comprises the following three evaluation elements: randomization (0–2 points), blinding (0–2 points), and dropouts and withdrawals (0–1 points) [14]. One point was awarded for each element that was conducted and appropriately described in the original article. The total score varies from 0 to 5 points. An article with a Jadad score of ≤2 is considered to be of low quality, while a Jadad score of ≥3 indicates the high quality of a study [15]

Statistical analysis

Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic, with I2 > 50% taken to indicate significant heterogeneity [16]. Sensitivity analysis was performed for evaluating the influence of a single study on the overall estimate by omitting one study in turn or performing subgroup analysis. The random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Owing to the limited number of included studies (<10), publication bias was not assessed. Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Software Version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK).

Results

Literature search, study characteristics, and quality assessment

A total of 389 articles were initially identified from database searches. After the removal of duplicates, 255 articles were retained. Of these, 247 were excluded from analysis following the screening of the abstracts and titles, three were excluded due to study design, and one was excluded because of insufficient data. Four RCTs were identified for satisfying the inclusion criteria, and they were finally enrolled in this meta-analysis [17-20]. The article selection process was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flow diagram of study searching and selection process.

Baseline characteristics of the four included RCTs are shown in Table 1. These studies were published between 2001 and 2017, and the total sample size was 349. Patients in three of the studies [17-19] received 40-mg furosemide at the initiation of SWL, while one study [20] describes the administration of 20-mg furosemide at the initiation of SWL. Sabharwal et al. used shocks at a frequency of 80/min starting at 7 kV with dose escalation up to 16 kV until either the stone fragmented or the maximum of 1,500 or 2,000 shocks was reached (per session) for renal or upper ureteric calculi, respectively. Up to three sessions were performed. Zomorrodi et al. described the administration of 3,500 shocks with an energy of 9–13 kV per session in up to three sessions. Azm et al. administered shocks at a rate of 90/min at 10 kV with dose escalation up to 18 kV (in up to four sessions). Lastly, Yoon et al. reported the use of 3,000 shocks in one session. The evaluated of the stone clearance for three studies [17-19] were 3 months and one [20] is for three weeks.

Table 1

Characteristics of the included studied.

No.	Author	year	Experimental group					Control group
			Number(n)	Age(Mean±SD)	Male(n)	Calculus size(mm)	Method	Number(n)	Age(Mean)	Male(n)	Calculus size(mm)	Method	Jadad score
1	Sabharwal	2017	48	38.5±10.5	31	9.4±3.1	40 mg furosemide at the start of SWL	48	39.4±10.9	30	9.2±3.1	SWL with placebo	4
2	Zomorrodi	2008	44	12 to 52	-	10–18	40 mg furosemide at the start of the SWL	43	12 to 52	-	8–16	SWL	2
3	Azm	2001	52	38.8±10	-	9.3±2.3	40 mg furosemide	54	38.8±10	-	9.6±2.5	SWL	3
4	Yoon	2002	30	43.1±11.3		8.9±5.1	20 mg furosemide at the start of SWL	30	44.5±11.3		9.2±4.8	SWL with placebo	4

Although all the RCTs reported the rate of stone clearance and fragmentation, only two RCTs [18-19] described the total number of shocks and sessions required.

The Jadad scores of the included studies varied from two to four. One study [18] was considered to be low quality while other three studies [17, 19, 20] were considered to be high quality.

Primary outcome: stone clearance and fragmentation

A random-effects model was used for analyzing the primary outcomes. Compared with control groups, our results indicated that the use of diuretic significantly improved the fragmentation achieved by SWL (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.05–1.03; P = 0.02) with insignificant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.42, Fig 2). Although the outcome of stone clearance showed some differences between the studies, this was not noted to be statistically significant (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.97–1.56, P = 0.08) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 74%, P = 0.01, Fig 3).

Fig 2

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of fragmentation.

Fig 3

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of stone clearance.

Secondary outcomes: total number of shocks and sessions required

The study by Sabharwal et al. reported mean total numbers of shocks in experimental and control groups of 3,661.4 ± 1,946 and 3,894.7 ± 2,254, respectively (P<0.05), and a mean number of sessions of 2.12 ± 1.17 and 2.25 ± 1.3, respectively (P<0.05). Zomorrodi et al. reported 5,300 and 6,293 shocks, respectively (P < 0.05) and 1.5 and 1.92 sessions, respectively (P < 0.05). The above results could not be subjected to meta-analysis due to incomplete data; however, the numbers of shocks and sessions were not significantly affected by the use of diuretic.

Sensitivity analysis

Significant heterogeneity was observed for the outcome of stone clearance. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of the results. After removing the study by Yoon et al., heterogeneity was low (I2 = 2%, P = 0.36) and the outcome of stone clearance remained statistically insignificant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.00–1.23, P = 0.02, Fig 4).

Fig 4

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of stone clearance after sensitivity analysis.

Discussion

Our results suggested that the use of diuretics during SWL improved the fragmentation of urinary stones. In present clinical practice, SWL is the most frequently used approach for the treatment of urolithiasis [18]. Despite its several advantages, incomplete fragmentation may occur, requiring multiple SWL sessions and resulting in pain caused by large stone fragments. The success of SWL is influenced by several factors, including the stone characteristics (site, burden, and type) and the condition of the kidney (degree of obstruction, renal unit functionality) [21]. Adjuvant therapies can often improve the outcomes of SWL. Ureteral stenting during SWL has been proposed; however, its disadvantages overpower its benefits [22]. Some studies have also reported that diuresis could improve the outcomes of SWL, yet its clinical benefit remains unclear. Herein, we investigated the effects of diuretic administration on the outcomes of SWL.

Diuresis causes the production of a fluid film, which forms a layer on the surface of the stone, possibly contributing to the increase in the success rate [23]. Additionally, after the outer shell of the stones are damaged by the shocks, the permeation rate of urine into the stone increases, improving the effects of subsequent shock waves on the stone core [24]. Diuresis causes the production of urine during SWL, creating a liquid interface on the shell surface and between the damaged shell and core. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the total number of shocks and sessions required for complete lithotripsy decreased, presumably due to enhanced fragmentation.

The heterogeneity in stone clearance was initially attributed to clinical heterogeneity coming from the study by Yoon et al. In this study, the outcome was assessed three weeks after the treatment, while the other studies reported this parameter three months post-treatment. Furthermore, in Yoon’s study, only one SWL session was performed, while the other three studies used a maximum of four sessions. Nevertheless, after the exclusion of this study, the differences in stone clearance remained insignificant. Despite the positive effects of diuretics on fragmentation, stone clearance is influenced by multiple factors. Additionally, multiple SWL sessions may obscure the effects of diuretics on stone clearance. In the Yoon et al. study [20], the patients underwent fewer SWL sessions, and significant differences in stone clearance between patients who received diuretics or placebo were reported. Residual stones were evaluated three months post-treatment in all the studies included in our final analysis. Although we did not find the use of diuretics to cause a significant improvement in stone clearance in the long-term following repeated sessions of SWL, whether diuretics reduce the time required for the stone clearance remains unclear.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effects of diuretics administration during SWL on treatment outcomes. However, there was insufficient data regarding adverse effects associated with the use of diuretics for further analysis. Differences in stone size, location, and type, as well as in the SWL machine used may have caused unpredictable bias. Moreover, unpublished and missing negative data may have resulted in bias toward the diuretic effects.

In conclusion, the use of diuretics significantly improves stone fragmentation in patients undergoing SWL. However, the improvement in stone clearance is insignificant.

Prisma Checklist for Effects of Diuretic Administration on Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-33308

Effects of DiureticAdministration on Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 30 days. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Federico Bilotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. To comply with the items on the PRISMA checklist, please provide the following information in your Methods section: who screened studies for inclusion (which is a different step to data extraction). Please also structure your abstract using subheadings

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

PONE-D-19-33308

In this SR and meta-analysis, the Authors investigated the effect of diuretics on the outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of urinary stones.

The Authors performed searches of PubMed, Web of science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases from inception to November 2019.

The RCTs were selected for assessing the effects of diuretics on fragmentation and clearance of urinary stones. The search strategy and study selection process were performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, intervention groups experienced significant improvements in fragmentation compared with the control groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05–1.03, P = 0.02).

However, stone clearance did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.97–1.56, P = 0.08). The total numbers of shocks and sessions required were significantly reduced by the use of diuretics.

The Authors concluded that, diuretics significantly enhance stone fragmentation for patients undergoing SWL.

Reviewer comments: The article has analysed the available literature and extrapolated conclusions which are clinically insignificant to make recommendations to clinical practice or add any substantial value to the available literature. Reject

Editor’s comments: this SR and meta-analysis provide new information related the effect of diuretics on the outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of urinary stones, despite some methodological limitations.

The Authors selected only 4 study to include in the meta-analysis.

The Table are indented in the text, please report them at the end of the article.

The first sentence of the Discussion should summarize the main results of the SR, please edit the sentence: “Following its implementation, SWL has since become the most frequently used approach for the treatment of urolithiasis (18).”

The Discussion section is long and straight, please focus on the outcome of the study and shortened by 20%.

I would like, for your interest, to remind one of paper related to the same topic that have been published in PLOS. Please consider to include:

1. Hai Wang, Libo Man, Guizhong Li, Guanglin Huang, Ning Liu, Jianwei Wang. Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones Research Article | published 09 Jan 2017 PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167670

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article has analysed the available litreature and extrapolated conclusions which are clinically insignificant to make recoomendations to clinical practice or add any substantial value to the available litreature.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

30 Jan 2020

1. The Table are indented in the text, please report them at the end of the article.

Response: We are very sorry to make the incorrect format and we corrected it according to requirement.

2. The first sentence of the Discussion should summarize the main results of the SR, please edit the sentence: “Following its implementation, SWL has since become the most frequently used approach for the treatment of urolithiasis (18).”

Response: It is a really good suggestion and we made the correction in this part,

3. The Discussion section is long and straight, please focus on the outcome of the study and shortened by 20%.

Response: Thanks for the comments and we have shortened this part according to the comments.

4. The paper related to the same topic that have been published in PLOS. Please consider to include: 1. Hai Wang, Libo Man, Guizhong Li, Guanglin Huang, Ning Liu, Jianwei Wang. Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones Research Article | published 09 Jan 2017 PLOS ONE.

Response: This is a very impressive study and we have cited this study in our article as the suggestion.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Feb 2020

Effects of Diuretic Administration on Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PONE-D-19-33308R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Federico Bilotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

27 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-33308R1

Effects of Diuretic Administration on Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Wang:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Federico Bilotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE