Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Urology ; 149: 76-80, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33373701

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of parecoxib and paracetamol for treatment of acute renal colic due to ureteric stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, double blinded, controlled trial included adult patients presented to emergency department with acute renal colic due to ureteric calculi between June 2019 and August 2020. Patients with hypersensitivity to either drug, peptic ulcer, coronary ischemia, peripheral vascular or cerebrovascular disease, hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score >10) or chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5 were excluded. Eligible patients were randomized to group 1 who received 1g intravenous Paracetamol infusion or group 2 who received 40mg intravenous Parecoxib infusion. Pain analogue score was evaluated before treatment and 30 minutes afterwards. The primary endpoint was the need for rescue analgesia for persistent pain. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: The study included 203 patients (102 in group 1 and 101 in group 2). Pretreatment patients' data were comparable for both groups. The mean pain analogue score decrease from 7.6 to 3.8 in paracetamol group (P <.001) and from 7.8 to 3.4 in parecoxib group (P <.001). Rescue analgesia were needed in 36 patients (35.3%) in paracetamol group and 27 patients (26.7%) in parecoxib group (P = .187). Minor adverse events developed in 2 patients (2%) in paracetamol group and 3 patients (3%) in parecoxib group (P=0.683). CONCLUSION: Paracetamol and Parecoxib were effective for treatment for patient with acute renal colic. Both treatments showed comparable results in reduction of pain and need for rescue analgesia with minimal adverse events.


Assuntos
Acetaminofen/administração & dosagem , Isoxazóis/administração & dosagem , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Cólica Renal/tratamento farmacológico , Cálculos Ureterais/complicações , Acetaminofen/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Infusões Intravenosas , Isoxazóis/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor/estatística & dados numéricos , Medição da Dor/estatística & dados numéricos , Cólica Renal/diagnóstico , Cólica Renal/etiologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Cálculos Ureterais/tratamento farmacológico
2.
Arab J Urol ; 18(4): 236-240, 2020 May 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33312734

RESUMO

Objectives: To develop and validate a scoring system to assess the need for emergency intervention (EI) in patients with uncomplicated acute renal colic (ARC) due to ureteric stones. Patients and methods: From May 2017 to April 2019, 382 adult patients presented to emergency department with ARC due to ureteral stones diagnosed by non-contrast computed tomography. Patients with solitary kidney, complications secondary to obstruction (intractable vomiting, fever or sepsis), bilateral ureteric stones, Stage ≥3 chronic kidney disease or those who underwent treatment of urolithiasis within the past 6 months were excluded. EI was performed in cases with persistent or recurrent pain despite analgesics. Multivariate analysis was performed for the first 200 patients to detect risk factors for EI. The score was developed from significant factors. Sensitivity and specificity of the ARC score were calculated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The data of last 182 patients were used for validation of the score. Results: In the first 200 patients, EI was needed in 119 patients (59.5%) and included ureteric stents in 92, ureteroscopy in 25 and percutaneous nephrostomy in two. Significant factors for EI were stone location (relative risk [RR] 3.34, P = 0.026), creatinine level (RR 1.04, P < 0.001), leucocyte count (RR 1.69, P < 0.001), and stone length (RR 1.85, P < 0.001). A score using these four variables was developed. The ARC score sensitivity was 86%, specificity was 80% and the area under the ROC curve was 0.902. Validation of the score showed strong correlation between ARC score and need for EI (r = 0.788, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The ARC score is a validated, highly sensitive and specific novel score to determine the need for EI in patients with uncomplicated ARC secondary to ureteric stones. Abbreviations: ARC: acute renal colic; AUC: area under the ROC curve; CDR: clinical decision rules; CKD: chronic kidney disease; ED: emergency department; EI: emergency intervention; MET: medical expulsive therapy; NCCT: non-contrast CT; PCNL, percutaneous nephrolithotomy; ROC: receiver operator characteristic; S.T.O.N.E.: stone size (S), tract length (T), obstruction (O), number of involved calyces (N), and essence or stone density (E); SWL: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy; WBC: white blood cell.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA