Can serum procalcitonin levels be useful in predicting spontaneous ureteral stone passage?
Leucocyturia
Medical expulsive therapy
Serum procalcitonin
Spontaneous stone passage
Ureteral stone
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Apr 2020
19 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
04
05
2019
accepted:
02
04
2020
entrez:
21
4
2020
pubmed:
21
4
2020
medline:
5
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for ureteral stones when there is no indication for interventional treatment. Spontaneous passage (SP) may not always be perceived in patients undergoing MET. We aimed to demonstrate the effects of inflammatory factors on spontaneous ureteral stone passage in patients undergoing MET. Our study was conducted between August and November, 2016, in healthy volunteers and patients with a single distal ureteral stone between 5 and 10 mm in diameter and no indications for interventional therapy. Blood and urine samples from all patients and healthy volunteers were tested. The patients were followed up every 2 weeks for 1 month unless emergency situations appeared. Patients with stone-free status at follow-up were concluded to have achieved complete stone passage [SP(+)], and failure [SP(-)] was concluded if the patient had not passed the stone by the end of the study. Blood samples of the patients and the control group were analyzed, recording WBC (white blood cell), CRP (c-reactive protein), SED (sedimentation), MPV (mean platelet volume), NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and serum procalcitonin levels. Abnormalities in urine samples were recorded. All patients received diclofenac sodium 75 mg/day, tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and at least 3 l/day fluid intake. Patients were followed for a month with kidney, ureter, bladder (KUB) plain films, ultrasonography (USG), and unenhanced abdominal CT scans while undergoing MET. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between the SP(+) and SP(-) groups. The procalcitonin levels of the SP(-) group were significantly higher (207 ± 145.1 pg/ml) than in the SP(+) group (132.7 ± 28.1 pg/ml) (p = 0.000). The leucocyturia rate of the SP(-) group was significantly higher than in the SP(+) group (p = 0.004). Based on the ROC curve analysis, 160 pg/ml (86.7% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, p < 0.001; AUC: 0.788 95% CI (0.658-0.917) was identified as the optimal cut-off value for procalcitonin. In logistic regression analysis, a significant efficacy of procalcitonin and leucocyturia was observed in the univariate analysis on spontaneous passage. In the multivariate analysis, significant independent activity was observed with procalcitonin. (p < 0.05). Our findings suggest that high procalcitonin levels and the presence of leucocyturia have a strong negative effect on SP of ureteral stones between 5 and 10 mm in diameter. This relationship can be explained by stone impaction, possibly caused by increased mucosal inflammation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for ureteral stones when there is no indication for interventional treatment. Spontaneous passage (SP) may not always be perceived in patients undergoing MET. We aimed to demonstrate the effects of inflammatory factors on spontaneous ureteral stone passage in patients undergoing MET.
METHODS
METHODS
Our study was conducted between August and November, 2016, in healthy volunteers and patients with a single distal ureteral stone between 5 and 10 mm in diameter and no indications for interventional therapy. Blood and urine samples from all patients and healthy volunteers were tested. The patients were followed up every 2 weeks for 1 month unless emergency situations appeared. Patients with stone-free status at follow-up were concluded to have achieved complete stone passage [SP(+)], and failure [SP(-)] was concluded if the patient had not passed the stone by the end of the study. Blood samples of the patients and the control group were analyzed, recording WBC (white blood cell), CRP (c-reactive protein), SED (sedimentation), MPV (mean platelet volume), NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and serum procalcitonin levels. Abnormalities in urine samples were recorded. All patients received diclofenac sodium 75 mg/day, tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and at least 3 l/day fluid intake. Patients were followed for a month with kidney, ureter, bladder (KUB) plain films, ultrasonography (USG), and unenhanced abdominal CT scans while undergoing MET. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between the SP(+) and SP(-) groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The procalcitonin levels of the SP(-) group were significantly higher (207 ± 145.1 pg/ml) than in the SP(+) group (132.7 ± 28.1 pg/ml) (p = 0.000). The leucocyturia rate of the SP(-) group was significantly higher than in the SP(+) group (p = 0.004). Based on the ROC curve analysis, 160 pg/ml (86.7% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, p < 0.001; AUC: 0.788 95% CI (0.658-0.917) was identified as the optimal cut-off value for procalcitonin. In logistic regression analysis, a significant efficacy of procalcitonin and leucocyturia was observed in the univariate analysis on spontaneous passage. In the multivariate analysis, significant independent activity was observed with procalcitonin. (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that high procalcitonin levels and the presence of leucocyturia have a strong negative effect on SP of ureteral stones between 5 and 10 mm in diameter. This relationship can be explained by stone impaction, possibly caused by increased mucosal inflammation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32306948
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00608-3
pii: 10.1186/s12894-020-00608-3
pmc: PMC7168945
doi:
Substances chimiques
Procalcitonin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
42Références
BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(8 Pt B):E339-45
pubmed: 22372435
J Urol. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):987-91
pubmed: 26598425
Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Nov-Dec;9(11-12):E837-51
pubmed: 26788233
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Nov;49(11):1941-1946
pubmed: 28803386
Urol Ann. 2016 Jul-Sep;8(3):277-80
pubmed: 27453647
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):603-8
pubmed: 22357999
J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):585-9
pubmed: 20018321
Yonsei Med J. 2017 Sep;58(5):988-993
pubmed: 28792143
J Urol. 2015 Oct;194(4):1009-13
pubmed: 25963189
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):468-74
pubmed: 26318710
Lancet. 1998 Jun 13;351(9118):1797-801
pubmed: 9635968
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):504-507
pubmed: 27506951
Arab J Urol. 2015 Jun;13(2):84-90
pubmed: 26413326
J Endourol. 2019 Feb;33(2):152-158
pubmed: 30343603
J Endourol. 2010 Jun;24(6):923-30
pubmed: 20482232
BMC Urol. 2014 Mar 22;14:27
pubmed: 24655408
Int J Urol. 2011 Jul;18(7):510-4
pubmed: 21592234
Eur Urol. 2006 Nov;50(5):981-90; discussion 990
pubmed: 16481097
Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;50(5):552-63
pubmed: 17681643
Br J Anaesth. 1999 Oct;83(4):602-7
pubmed: 10673877
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Jan;67(1):86-95.e2
pubmed: 26194935
J Urol. 2012 Jul;188(1):130-7
pubmed: 22591962
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):102-9
pubmed: 24507782
Urolithiasis. 2013 Jun;41(3):235-9
pubmed: 23468212
Eurasian J Med. 2016 Oct;48(3):162-166
pubmed: 28149138