Alfuzosin Treatment Improves The Rate and Time for Stone Expulsion in Patients with Distal Uretral Stones: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

The regular use of calcium channel blockers before flexible URS appears to facilitate primary UAS insertion: a retrospective study in a single center

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of regular use of CCB before flexible URS for successful primary UAS insertion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 209 patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (URS) for upper urinary tract calculi between Jan 2021 and Dec 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether calcium channel blockers (CCB) were used (n = 72) or not (n = 137). The following parameters were collected: age, sex, height and weight, BMI, stone location, stone burden, number of stones, operation time, hospital stay, hospital readmission, post-operative fever, post-operative SIRS rate, Clavien-Dindo grade, hospitalization costs, successful primary UAS insertion. We compared the two groups using Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U test and χ² test for quantitative and categorical variables, respectively. A logistic regression model was used to identify predictive factors of UAS successful primary insertion.

RESULTS

Compared with the non-CCB group, the CCB group had a higher successful primary UAS insertion rate (97.2% vs.85.4%, p = 0.008), and a lower hospital readmission rate (2.8% vs.12.4%, p = 0.021). In multivariate analyses, the regular use of CCB was the only predictive factor of successful primary UAS insertion rate (OR 6.32, 95% CI 1.41-28.29, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The regular use of calcium channel blockers (CCB) before flexible URS appears to facilitate ureteral access sheaths (UAS) primary insertion.

Effect of alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists on sexual function. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.

EFFICACY OF ALFUZOSIN VERSUS CONTROL GROUP IN UPPER URETERIC STONE EXPULSION IN ADULT POPULATION OF LAHORE, PAKISTAN

Background: Urinary stone disease is one of the commonest urological diseases worldwide. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of alfuzosin versus control group in upper ureteric stone expulsion in adult population of district Lahore, Pakistan.Materials Methods: This trial was conducted in Department of Urology, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan form January 2017 to June 2017. All adult patients with upper ureteric stone size 5-10 mm were eligible. Those with multiple stones, having fever, severe pain, history of surgery in past two weeks and growth on urine culture or pyuria were excluded. Experimental and control groups each had 30 patients. Experimental group received Tab. alfuzosin 10 mg daily for four weeks and Tab. diclofenac sodium 50 mg SOS for acute pain. The control group received Tab. diclofenac sodium 50 mg SOS for acute pain. We followed all patients for four weeks for expulsion of ureteric stones by X-ray KUB or CT KUB. Sex, age and stone size were matching variables. Stone expulsion (yes, no) was research variable. We compared count of stone expulsion between two groups by using McNemar chi-square test at alpha 0.5 using GraphPad.Results: Out of 30 patients in experimental group, 23 (76.67%) were men and seven (23.33%) women and out of 30 in control group, 20 (66.67%) were men and 10 (33.33%) women, almost similar in both groups. Mean age in experimental group was 39.45±10.33 years and in control group it was 37.38±8.28 years, almost similar in both groups. Mean stone size was 7.45±1.47 (5-10) mm in the experimental and 7.28±1.68 (5-10) mm in control group, being comparable in both the groups. In experimental group, stone expulsion was achieved in 23 (76.67%) cases and not in seven (23.33%) cases and in control group, it was achieved in 16 (53.33%) cases and not in 14 (46.67%) cases. There was statistically no significant difference in efficacy of alfuzosin versus control group (p=.1213).Conclusion: Our study showed no difference in efficacy of alfuzosin versus control group for upper ureteric stone expulsion in adult population of district Lahore, Pakistan.

Comparison of efficacy of various drugs used for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Medical expulsive therapy has been found to be effective for distal ureteric stones; however, which drug is most efficacious in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET) is not known. With this review we aimed to compare the efficacy of various drug treatments for distal ureter stones used as medical expulsive therapy in terms of SER and SET.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted to include all the randomised study comparing various drug interventions for lower ureter stones. Standard preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were pursued.

RESULTS

In this review, 50 randomised studies with 12,382 patients were included. For stone expulsion rate (SER), compared with placebo all the treatment groups were more effective except nifedipine and sildenafil. According to the SUCRA values obtained, naftopidil plus steroid was the highest rank and nifedipine lowest. For stone expulsion time (SET), compared with placebo only tadalafil plus silodosin, nifedipine plus steroid, alfuzosin, silodosin, tadalafil and tamsulosin were more effective. SUCRA values were highest for tadalafil plus silodosin and least for naftopidil plus steroid. From subgroup analysis with individual drugs for SER, SUCRA values were highest for naftopidil followed by silodosin and SET was highest for silodosin and least for naftopidil.

CONCLUSION

For lower ureter stone, tadalafil plus silodosin is the best combination and silodosin best individual drug considering the SET and SER. Nifedipine as monotherapy is no more effective than control group.

Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction:

The efficacy of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is well established. However, it is not known which of the three most commonly used alpha-blockers (tamsulosin, alfuzosin and silodosin) is the most efficacious. With this study we aimed to assess the efficacy of the three commonly used alpha-blockers as MET for distal ureter stones.

Materials and Methods:

For this review, we searched multiple databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, OviD SP, CINAHL, and web of science to identify all the relevant randomized studies comparing the efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and silodosin. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were followed while conducting this review and the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175706).

Results:

In this review, 31 studies with 7077 patients were included. Compared to placebo all the treatment groups were more effective for both stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET). For both SER and SET, silodosin had the highest SUCRA (94.8 and 90.4) values followed by alfuzosin (58.8 and 64.9) and tamsulosin (46.2 and 44.5). The incidence of postural hypotension was similar with all the drugs, whereas, the incidence of retrograde ejaculation was significantly higher for silodosin. Overall confidence for each comparison group in this review ranged from “very low” to “moderate” according to the CINeMA approach.

Conclusion:

Among the three commonly used alpha-blockers silodosin is the most efficacious drug as MET for lower ureter stones followed by alfuzosin and tamsulosin.

Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasonic Longitudinal-Axis Vibration for the Reduction of Ureteral Access Sheath Insertion Force: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a Porcine Model

PURPOSE

Excessive bulking force during ureteral access sheath (UAS) placement may induce injury. The sliding friction between surfaces can be reduced with the application of ultrasonic vibration. We investigated the efficacy and safety of an ultrasonic vibration transducing device for reducing the maximal ureteral access sheath insertion force (UASIF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A device was developed for transducing ultrasonic longitudinal-axis vibration onto the UAS at an adjustable amplitude and frequency while measuring the degree of UASIF. In the pilot study, six porcine models were used to investigate the optimal amplitude and frequency of vibration and to calculate sample size. Twelve porcine models were utilized in a randomized controlled trial. Resected ureters were pathologically evaluated for ureteral injury.

RESULTS

The transduction of ultrasonic vibration at an amplitude of 0.04 g and a frequency of 18,000 Hz resulted in a maximal UASIF reduction of 36.4% (interquartile range 32.7-43.1). Maximal UASIF tended to decrease with increasing vibration frequency. No significant differences in UASIF reductions were observed according to amplitude. In the randomized controlled trial, the maximal UASIF reduction was 37.0% (interquartile range 21.4-44.2). Grade II injury was pathologically diagnosed in 8.3% (1/12) of the ureters in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The transduction of ultrasonic longitudinal-axis vibration onto the UAS reduces maximal UASIF and does not harm the ureter. Reducing the velocity of sheath insertion may further reduce maximal UASIF.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

Ureteral colic is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Alpha-blockers are commonly used to improve stone passage through so-called medical expulsive therapy (MET), but their effectiveness remains controversial. This is an update of a 2014 Cochrane review; since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of alpha-blockers compared with standard therapy for ureteral stones 1 cm or smaller confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stone disease.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP to identify all published/unpublished and ongoing trials. We checked all references of included and review articles and conference proceedings for articles relevant to this review. We sent letters to investigators to request information about unpublished or incomplete studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of ureteral stone passage in adult patients that compared alpha-blockers versus standard therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were stone clearance and major adverse events; secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, use of diclofenac, hospitalisation, and surgical intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence on a per-outcome basis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies with 10,509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5787 participants used a placebo.Stone clearance: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.55; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that the likely effect is probably smaller (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 116 more (95% CI 51 more to 182 more) stone clearances per 1000 participants.Major adverse events: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may have little effect on major adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.96; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that alpha-blockers likely increase the risk of major adverse events slightly (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.86), corresponding to 29 more (95% CI 3 more to 75 more) major adverse events per 1000 participants.Patients treated with alpha-blockers may experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference (MD) -3.40 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), may use less diclofenac (MD -82.41, 95% CI -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence), and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 69 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI 93 fewer to 32 fewer) per 1000 participants. Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 28 fewer surgical interventions (95% CI 51 fewer to 2 more) per 1000 participants.A predefined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; P = 0.002) suggests that effects of alpha-blockers may vary with stone size, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones 5 mm or smaller versus 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones larger than 5 mm. We found no evidence suggesting possible subgroup effects based on stone location or alpha-blocker type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with ureteral stones, alpha-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that alpha-blockers may be less effective for smaller (5 mm or smaller) than for larger stones (greater than 5 mm).

Alpha blockers in the management of ureteric lithiasis: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Effective medical expulsion for ureteric stones with α-blockers offers numerous advantages over surgical alternatives. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain and with the publication of new trial data, the available evidence requires reappraisal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of α-blockers the management of ureteric lithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature, with predefined search criteria, was conducted using PubMed and Embase. All randomised trials comparing α-blocker monotherapy to placebo or standard therapy were included. Stone expulsion rate was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were time to stone expulsion, analgesic usage and pain scores. Subgroup analyses assessed individual adrenergic antagonists and variations in standard therapy. Sensitivity analysis was based on stone location, stone size, Cochrane Risk of Bias score and study protocol. Summary effects were calculated using a random-effect model and presented as Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcome measures, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies randomising 6654 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Stone expulsion rates improved with α-blockers (RR, 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.61). Contrast enhanced funnel showed evidence of publication bias. Stone expulsion time was 3.99 days (CI -4.75 to -3.23) shorter with α-blockers. Similarly, patients required 106.53 mg [CI -148.20 to -64.86] less diclofenac compared with control/placebo, and had 0.80 [CI -1.07 to -0.54] fewer pain episodes. Visual Analogue Scores were also reduced, -2.43 [CI -3.87 to -0.99]. All formulations of α-antagonists all demonstrated beneficial effects over conservative treatment/placebo. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant effects of stone location, stone size and study design.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite the opposing results of recently published trial, current evidence continues to demonstrate a potential benefit of α-blocker treatment particularly for distal stones over 5 mm.

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

 Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible. : Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.

RESULTS

 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference -3.79 days, -4.45 to -3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (-0.74 episodes, -1.28 to -0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

 Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

 PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.