| Literature DB >> 32503502 |
Carlos Torrecilla1, Jaime Fernández-Concha1, José R Cansino2, Juan A Mainez2, José H Amón3, Simbad Costas4, Oriol Angerri5, Esteban Emiliani5, Miguel A Arrabal Martín6, Miguel A Arrabal Polo6, Ana García7, Manuel C Reina7, Juan F Sánchez8, Alberto Budía9, Daniel Pérez-Fentes10, Félix Grases11, Antonia Costa-Bauzá12, Jordi Cuñé13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Encrustation of ureteral double J stents is a common complication that may affect its removal. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new oral composition to prevent double J stent encrustation in indwelling times up to 8 weeks.Entities:
Keywords: Double J stent; Encrustation; L-methionine; Nutraceutical; Phytin; pH
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32503502 PMCID: PMC7275439 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00633-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Urol ISSN: 1471-2490 Impact factor: 2.264
Fig. 1Patient flow chart and allocation
Fig. 2Encrustation measurement from 0 (nothing) to 4 (global encrustation) measured by radiographic image, microscopic view and electron microscope of the stent
Characteristics of the study population
| Placebo group | Nutraceutical group | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | Mean (SD) | N (%) | Mean (SD) | N (%) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 28 (53.8) | 30 (56.6) | 58 (55.2) | 0.85 | |||
| Female | 24 (46.2) | 23 (43.4) | 47 (44.8) | ||||
| Total | 52 (100) | 53 (100) | 105 (100) | ||||
| Age | 51.5 (13.2) | 51.7 (13.0) | 51.6 (13.1) | 0.95 | |||
| Previous obstructive uropathy | 19 (36.5) | 21 (39.6) | 40 (38.1) | 0.84 | |||
| Previous stenting | 19 (36.5) | 22 (41.5) | 41 (39) | 0.69 | |||
| Urolithiasis as cause of current implantation | 41 (78.8) | 41 (77.4) | 82 (78.1) | 0.85 | |||
| Type of calculi | |||||||
| Calcium oxalate | 19 (46.3) | 21 (51.2) | 40 (48.8) | 0.80 | |||
| Others | 22 (53.7) | 20 (48.7) | 42 (51.2) | ||||
| Total | 41 (100) | 41 (100) | 82 (100) | ||||
| Stent material | |||||||
| Polyurethane | 23 (44.3) | 20 (37.7) | 43 (40.9) | 0.45 | |||
| Silicone | 1 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | ||||
| Percuflex | 28 (53.8) | 33 (62.3) | 61 (58.1) | ||||
| Implantation period (days) | 39.7 (14.9) | 35.4 (12.7) | 37.54 (13.9) | 0.12 | |||
| Basal urinary pH | 43 (100) | 6.2 (0.6) | 44 (100) | 6.3 (0.8) | 87 (100) | 6.3 (0.7) | 0.62 |
SD standard deviation
Group homogeneity at baseline
Between groups analysis
| Placebo | Nutraceutical | Inference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | n | Mean (SD) | n | Difference/OR (95% CI) | p | |
| Kidney stent end | 64.73 (241.74) | 49 | 7.66 (23.69) | 50 | 57.07 (−11.1, 125.25) | 0.89 |
| Bladder stent end | 105.51 (304.99) | 49 | 30.16 (142.52) | 50 | 75.35 (−19.3, 170.00) | 0.65 |
| Sum of stent ends | 170.24 (513.58) | 49 | 37.82 (159.24) | 50 | 75.35 (−19.28, 169.99) | 0.65 |
| Maximum of stent ends | 105.69 (304.93) | 49 | 30.34 (142.49) | 50 | 132.43 (−18.62, 283.47) | 0.67 |
| Sum of stent ends | 78.34 (158.44) | 39 | 11.11 (32.97) | 37 | 67.23 (19.18, 115.29) | 0.006 |
| Sum of stent ends | 57.57 (122.09) | 39 | 18.27 (48.42) | 37 | 39.0 (2.02, 76.57) | 0.039 |
| pH reduction baseline (24 h) to day 21 | 0.39 (0.7) | 28 | 0.86 (0.78) | 32 | −0.47 (−0.85, −0.084) | 0.018 |
| pH reduction days 1–3 to day 21 | 0.17 (0.49) | 36 | 0.54 (0.58) | 36 | −0.37 (−0.62, −0.11) | 0.005 |
| pH slope | −.0061 (.013) | 40 | −.014 (0.02) | 39 | 0.008 (0.00006, 0.016) | 0.042 |
| Removal surgery time (min) | 13.8 (30.5) | 52 | 7.23 (13.5) | 52 | 0.76 | |
| Removal surgery time (adjusted, min) | 40.9 (5.8) | 52 | 9.5 (4.15) | 52 | < 0.001 | |
| Stent removed at first attempt | 47 | 48.5 | 50 | 51.5 | 2.66 [0.49–14.37] | 0.44 |
Fig. 3Multivariate model of Double J ureteral stent encrustation
Amount of calcium deposited on the stent
| Magnitude of the scale | Id | Calcium deposit |
|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | 49 bladder | 0,95 nmol / cm |
| 59 bladder | 1,21 nmol / cm | |
| 43 renal | 0,84 nmol / cm | |
| 49 renal | 0,42 nmol / cm | |
| 50 renal | 0,85 nmol / cm | |
| Type 3 | 41 bladder | 330 nmol / cm |
| 3 bladder | 346 nmol / cm | |
| 72 bladder | 244 nmol / cm | |
| 3 renal | 329 nmol / cm |
Characterization for stents encrustation Bladder (N = 99) and Renal (N = 99) ends
| Percentage (%) of encrustation in stents | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bladder end | Renal end | |||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| no deposit | 28.3 | 41.4 | ||||||
| OM | 12.1 | 8.1 | ||||||
| COM | 24.2 | 27.3 | ||||||
| COM + COD | 14.1 | 11.1 | ||||||
| BRU | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | |||||
| HAP | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | |||||
| HAP + BRU | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |||||
| UA | 3.0 | 2.0 | ||||||
| UA + COM | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| bacteria | 4.0 | 2.0 | ||||||
| HAP + PAM | 2.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| BRU + COD | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | |||
| AU | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | |||
OM organic matter; COM calcium oxalate monohydrate; COD calcium oxalate dihydrate; BRU brushite; HAP hydroxyapatite; UA uric acid; PAM ammonium magnesium phosphate; AU ammonium urate
Fig. 4Surface of a stent covered by an organic matter layer (conditioning film) in which colonies of bacteria have developed (encrustation classified as 1)
Fig. 5Surface of a stent covered by dihydrate uric acid deposits, classified as 2. (A) Optical image, (B) Scanning electron microscopy image
Fig. 6Surface of a stent covered by ammonium magnesium phosphate + hydroxyapatite deposits (A) Optical image, (B) Scanning electron microscopy image. Surface of a stent covered by brushite + hydroxyapatite deposits (C) Optical image, (B) Scanning electron microscopy image