The efficacy of tamsulosin therapy after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for ureteric calculi: A prospective randomised, controlled study

Outcomes of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy following shockwave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine stone-free rate following shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with/without alpha-blockers as well as complication rates (individual and classified using the Clavien-Dindo system).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials that included more than 20 patients (age > 18 years) and examined the use of alpha-blockers after SWL. Meta-analysis was performed using 'metafor' in R. We report risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The PROSPERO ID for the trial was: CRD42021248108.

RESULTS

We assessed 158 full-text articles and included a total of 21 studies in our review. There were 1445 patients receiving alpha-blockers and 1478 control patients. Those receiving alpha-blockers were significantly more likely to be stone-free (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07-1.16; P < 0.001). This effect was robust to 'trim-and-fill' adjustment. In those taking alpha-blockers there was a significant reduction in Clavien III-V complications and, on trim-and-fill adjustment, a significant reduction in Clavien I-II complications. There were also significant reduction in rates of steinstrasse, pain and requirement for auxiliary procedures. There was no significant difference in retreatment rates. These effects were robust to trim-and-fill adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a modest increase in stone-free rates in those receiving alpha-blockers following SWL, with a reciprocal modest risk reduction for steinstrasse, pain and auxiliary procedures. However, alpha-blockers do not reduce the risk of requiring retreatment.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Complications According to Modified Clavien-Dindo Grading System. A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis in a Sample of 115 Randomized Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) shows clear associated benefits for urolithiasis patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and classify SWL complications according to modified Clavien-Dindo grading system while assessing the effect of different patient characteristics, stone parameters, types of lithotripters, and lithotripsy techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature was reviewed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We analyzed the results of 115 randomized trials including 17827 patients, of whom 16.06%, 2.07%, 2.23%, 1.32%, 0.85%, 0.16%, and 0% suffered from Clavien I, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, IV, and V complications, respectively. In total, 18.43% of patients suffered from Clavien I-II and 2.48% from Clavien III-IV complications. In studies with >100 treated patients, Clavien I, III, and IV complication rates and need for auxiliary procedure rates were lower than in studies with smaller sample size. Electrohydraulic lithotripters led to a higher rate of Clavien IIIb and IV complications than electromagnetic lithotripters. Clavien I-II complications were increased by 14.3% in patients with multiple and complicated stones. Hematuria was increased by 8.29% in patients who underwent intravenous urography preoperatively and had longer duration of SWL. Pain occurrence was increased by 14.79% in patients with more than one stone at the time of SWL and by 3.21% in those who were managed with a piezoelectric lithotripter.

CONCLUSIONS

SWL should not be considered an uneventful procedure, as in 2.5% of cases an intervention or Clavien III-V complication will be observed. Low-volume centers, treatment of multiple or complex stones, a long-lasting SWL session, and electrohydraulic lithotripters are associated with higher rates of complications.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We analyze the occurrence of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) complications in 17000 patients. In centers with larger caseloads, complications were less common. The type of lithotripter is associated with complications. An increased number of treated stones, complex stones, and increased SWL duration were associated with a higher incidence of pain and hematuria.

Role of Tamsulosin with or without Deflazacort to facilitate stone clearance after ESWL: a single-center randomized controlled study

Background

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the treatment of choice for upper tract calculi of moderate size. After ESWL, various factors affect the passage of small fragments through ureter like fragment’s size and location. To facilitate fragment passage, a lot of medications have been tried and few have stood the test of the time. In this prospective study, we evaluated the role of Tamsulosin with or without Deflazacort versus no treatment after ESWL for ureteric and renal stones in terms of requirement of the number of ESWL sessions, stone clearance rate, stone expulsion time and analgesia requirements.

Results

Patients presenting between age-groups of 18–70 years with solitary renal/ureteric calculus of size between 6 and 15 mm in major axis with Hounsfield unit less than 1000 were recruited in one of the three groups (A, B and C) randomly. Patients in Group A were prescribed Tamsulosin (0.4 mg once daily) with Deflazacort (30 mg once daily), Group B were given Tamsulosin (0.4 mg once daily), and Group C received no treatment (analgesics SOS and hydration therapy) after undergoing ESWL. Two hundred and twenty-five patients were recruited in Group A, and 240 patients were recruited in Group B and Group C each. There was an insignificant difference for required mean ESWL sessions and stone clearance rate between three groups. There was an early clearance of stone fragments in Group A than in Groups B and C, and it was statistically significant between Group A and Group C, specifically in the subgroup of stone size 10.1–15 mm. The requirement of mean analgesic tablets difference was significant between Groups A and C.

Conclusions

Tamsulosin with Deflazacort decreases the number of required ESWL sessions and improves complete stone clearance, but the difference is not significant. There were significant improvement in facilitating early stone clearance and decrease in requirement of mean analgesic tablets after ESWL with Tamsulosin and Deflazacort. Thus, Tamsulosin with Deflazacort can be used safely to facilitate stone clearance without increased complication rate.

Alpha-blockers after shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones in adults

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely used method to treat renal and ureteral stone. It fragments stones into smaller pieces that are then able to pass spontaneously down the ureter and into the bladder. Alpha-blockers may assist in promoting the passage of stone fragments, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alpha-blockers as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care compared to placebo and usual care or usual care alone in adults undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, several clinical trial registries and grey literature for published and unpublished studies irrespective of language. The date of the most recent search was 27 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing SWL. Participants in the intervention group had to have received an alpha-blocker as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care. For the comparator group, we considered studies in which participants received placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion, and performed data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analysis for the identified dichotomous and continuous outcomes using RevManWeb according to Cochrane methods using a random-effects model. We judged the certainty of evidence on a per outcome basis using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 studies with 4793 participants randomized to usual care and an alpha-blocker versus usual care alone. Only four studies were placebo controlled. The mean age of participants was 28.6 to 56.8 years and the mean stone size prior to SWL was 7.1 mm to 13.2 mm. The most widely used alpha-blocker was tamsulosin; others were silodosin, doxazosin, terazosin and alfuzosin.  Alpha-blockers may improve clearance of stone fragments after SWL (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.23; I² = 78%; studies = 36; participants = 4084; low certainty evidence). Based on the stone clearance rate of 69.3% observed in the control arm, an alpha-blocker may increase stone clearance to 80.4%. This corresponds to 111 more (62 more to 159 more) participants per 1000 clearing their stone fragments. Alpha-blockers may reduce the need for auxiliary treatments after SWL (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 16%; studies = 12; participants = 1251; low certainty evidence), but also includes the possibility of no effect. Based on a rate of auxiliary treatments in the usual care arm of 9.7%, alpha-blockers may reduce the rate to 6.5%. This corresponds 32 fewer (53 fewer to 0 fewer) participants per 1000 undergoing auxiliary treatments. Alpha-blockers may reduce major adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; I² = 0%; studies = 7; participants = 747; low certainty evidence). Major adverse events occurred in 25.8% of participants in the usual care group; alpha-blockers would reduce this to 15.5%. This corresponds to 103 fewer (139 fewer to 52 fewer) major adverse events per 1000 with alpha-blocker treatment. None of the reported major adverse events appeared drug-related; most were emergency room visits or rehospitalizations. Alpha-blockers may reduce stone clearance time in days (mean difference (MD) -3.74, 95% CI -5.25 to -2.23; I² = 86%; studies = 14; participants = 1790; low certainty evidence). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. For those outcomes for which we were able to perform subgroup analyses, we found no evidence of interaction with stone location, stone size or type of alpha-blocker. We were unable to conduct an analysis by lithotripter type. The results were also largely unchanged when the analyses were limited to placebo controlled studies and those in which participants explicitly only received a single SWL session.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low certainty evidence, adjuvant alpha-blocker therapy following SWL in addition to usual care may result in improved stone clearance, less need for auxiliary treatments, fewer major adverse events and a reduced stone clearance time compared to usual care alone. We did not find evidence for quality of life. The low certainty of evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Role of pretreatment Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of factors affecting stone-clearance post-shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: a prospective study

PURPOSE

To identify the role of Doppler US (DUS) in the prediction of factors affecting stone-clearance post-SWL for ureteral stones in addition to its role in prediction of pretreatment stone impaction.

METHODS

We prospectively included patients with ureteric stone for SWL between October 2018 and September 2019. Patient's demographics were collected. Using DUS, resistive index (RI), Δ RI, and ureteric jets were evaluated in both kidneys. Also, stone site, volume, density, skin to stone distance, degree of hydronephrosis, ureteral wall thickness (UWT) were evaluated by NCCT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors that contribute to treatment success. Correlation between ipsilateral RI with other radiological findings predicting stone impaction was done.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were finally included (61 males and 32 females). The mean age was 31.4 ± 7.7 years. The success rate (absence of significant residuals post 1 month by NCCT) was 51.6%. In multivariate analysis, the presence of ureteric jet, ipsilateral lower RI, and ipsilateral lower UWT were independent factors for treatment success (P = 0.0001, 0.002, and 0.03, respectively). Also, ipsilateral absence of ureteric jet, increased hydronephrosis, and increased UWT were correlated with higher ipsilateral RI in prediction of stone impaction. Ipsilateral higher RI was found to achieve higher accuracy in stone impaction prediction (PPV of 94.8%).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment DUS is a useful, non-invasive with a less irradiative tool for prediction of stone impaction and stone-free rate post-SWL for ureteric stones.

Is tamsulosin effective for the passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some trials have stated that there is no benefit to tamsulosin administration for clearing ureteral stones, which is contrary to previous studies. To confirm the efficacy of tamsulosin for treating symptomatic ureteral stones, we performed this review.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all studied variables, including tamsulosin, urinary stones, expulsion, and side effects. In addition, for all patients and different stone sizes, the treatment efficacy, expulsion rate, and expulsion time were also recorded for this treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies involving 6436 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data synthesized from these studies indicated that tamsulosin improved the renal stone clearance rate (80.5% vs 70.5%; mean difference (MD), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.19; P <.00001) and reduced the expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -3.77 to -3.46; P ≤.00001). Regarding complications, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of the total side effects (MD, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; P = .10) or divided complications, including retrograde ejaculation (P = .01), hypotension (P = .52), dizziness (P = .07), diarrhea (P = .58), vomiting (P = .88), headache (P = .84), nausea (P = .91), and fatigue (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin should be strongly recommended for patients with ureteral stones to increase treatment efficacy. The side effects were not significantly different between the tamsulosin and control treatments.

A network meta-analysis on the beneficial effect of medical expulsive therapy after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We applied a newly introduced method, network meta-analysis, to re-evaluate the expulsion effect of drugs including tamsulosin, doxazosin, nifedipine, terazosin and rowatinex after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) as described in the literature. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library for articles published before March 2016. Twenty-six studies with 2775 patients were included. The primary outcome was the number of patients with successful stone expulsion. The data were subdivided into three groups according to duration of follow-up. A standard network model was established in each subgroup. In 15-day follow-up results, SUCRA outcome showed the ranking of effects was: doxazosin > tamsulosin > rowatinex > nifedipine > terazosin (88.6, 77.4, 58.6, 32.2 and 30.4, respectively). In 45-day follow-up results, SUCRA ranking was: tamsulosin > nifedipine > rowatinex (69.4, 67.2 and 62.6, respectively). In 90-day follow-up results, SUCRA ranking was: doxazosin > rowatinex > tamsulosin (84.1, 68.1 and 49.1, respectively). In conclusion, doxazosin and tamsulosin have potential to be the first choice for pharmacological therapy to promote the expulsion of urinary stone fragments after ESWL, with this doxazosin can improve the SFR in the long term, while tamsulosin may result more in accelerating the process of expulsion.

Ultrasonography Is Not Inferior to Fluoroscopy to Guide Extracorporeal Shock Waves during Treatment of Renal and Upper Ureteric Calculi: A Randomized Prospective Study

Objective

To investigate whether the visualization modality (ultrasound or fluoroscopy) used during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) affects the clinical outcome in those instances where both imaging modalities are optional.

Methods

Between November 2014 and July 2016, 114 patients with radiopaque upper urinary tract calculi were randomly assigned to an ultrasound- or fluoroscopy-guided SWL group in a prospective, open-label, single-center study. A standardized SWL protocol was used. The stone-free rate and the positive outcome rate (stone-free or asymptomatic residual fragments ≤ 4 mm) were compared.

Results

The stone-free rate was 52% in the ultrasound-guided group compared to 42% in the fluoroscopy-guided group (p = 0.06) and the positive outcome rate was 79% in the ultrasound-guided group compared to 70% in the fluoroscopy-guided group (p = 0.28). These results were not significantly different but proved to be noninferior based on a Wilson confidence interval of independent proportions (noninferiority limit 10%). The mean number of SWL sessions was not significantly different (p = 0.4).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that the clinical results of ultrasound-guided SWL were not inferior to the results of fluoroscopy-guided SWL, while no ionizing radiation is needed.

Can we predict the need for intervention in steinstrasse following shock wave lithotripsy?

Introduction:

Steinstrasse (SS) is a known complication of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Although the majority of SS clears spontaneously, about 6% require intervention. This study was carried out to identify the factors that determine the need for intervention in SS.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective study of all patients who developed steinstrasse following SWL at our center. They were divided into two groups: a) Those cleared spontaneously and b) Those required intervention. The two groups were compared with regard to demographic profile, stone factors and factors related to steinstrasse.

Results:

Out of 2436 cases of SWL, 89 (3%) formed steinstrasse. The majority of the patients (35%) who required intervention had stone sizes of 10-14 mm. Coptcoat type III steinstrasse required significantly more interventions for clearance (P = 0.001). The site and the size of the SS was not a predictor of intervention for SS.

Conclusions:

Early intervention is warranted in patients with steinstrasse where the lead fragment is >5 mm (Coptcoat type III).

Role of Tamsulosin Therapy after Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones: Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive tamsulosin therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for renal stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study was conducted on patients who underwent single-session SWL for solitary renal stone less than 20 mm. Post-SWL, patients were randomly divided into 2 groups; the tamsulosin group (TG), received a daily dose of tamsulosin 0.4 mg, for a maximum of 12 weeks, with post-SWL traditional analgesia and control group (CG), received the traditional analgesia alone.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 271 patients and eventually only 249 (123 in TG and 126 in CG) completed the study. The overall stone free rate was 73.5%: 78.0% in TG and 69.0% in CG (p = 0.108). In TG, 8.1% of patients experienced at least one episode of acute renal/ureteral colic compared with 19.8% of controls (p = 0.008). The mean cumulative analgesia dosage per subject was 313 mg in TG and 346 mg in CG (p < 0.001). Overall, 14 patients developed steinstrasse and 6 of them (all in CG) needed urgent intervention (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily tamsulosin therapy does not enhance the clearance of stone fragments but decreases the pain episodes, analgesia dosage and need for adjuvant intervention after SWL for renal stones.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin Combined with Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Many studies have been conducted to investigate adjunctive tamsulosin therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for urolithiasis. The results from those studies, however, are still inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to provide an update on the clinical efficacy and safety of tamsulosin combined with SWL for urolithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials until January 2015. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.1.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (2093 subjects in total) were identified in the current meta-analysis. Compared with a control group, the experimental group (tamsulosin combined with SWL) showed an increased overall benefit for stone expulsion, with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.26). With respect to the different geographic regions, European and American had a high possibility of improvement in stone expulsion (RR: 1.33, 95% CI, 1.19-1.49). According to the stone locations (renal, upper and lower ureteral) and sizes (4-10 mm and 11-24 mm), tamsulosin is more useful for lower ureteral stone (RR: 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43) and larger sized stones (RR: 1.49; 95% CI, 1.28-1.75). The effect estimates did not vary markedly when stratified by follow-up durations but varied by dose of tamsulosin. Furthermore, a shorter expulsion time, reduced occurrence of steinstrasse, fewer incidences of colic, and lower analgesic requirements were observed within the experimental group. In addition, tamsulosin is well tolerated, and its adverse events rarely led to dropouts of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence suggests that tamsulosin combined with SWL is safe and effective in enhancing stone expulsion for patients with urolithiasis. Furthermore, high-quality, randomized and placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin should be performed.