Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) in Patients With Infected Ureterohydronephrosis Due to Ureteral Stones Following Double-J Catheter Insertion.

INTRODUCTION: Double-J ureteral catheters in patients with ureteral lithiasis undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedures reduce the efficacy of the procedure or have no effect on the stone-free rate. However, the effect of double-J catheters on the patients in whom they were inserted for infected hydronephrosis is not known. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ESWL procedure in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters previously inserted for infected hydronephrosis. METHOD: We conducted a comparative case-control, match-paired study in a group of patients with ureteral lithiasis treated by ESWL from January 1, 2018, to March 1, 2023, who were divided into two groups according to the presence of the double-J catheter. For each patient with the double-J catheter from the study group, we selected one patient for the control group without the double-J catheter and matched them in terms of size, location of stones, and body mass index (BMI). We analyzed the stone-free rate and complications that occurred in the two groups. RESULTS: Forty patients with ureteral lithiasis and a double-J catheter inserted for infected hydronephrosis were enrolled in the study group. The control group included 40 patients with ureteral stones without double-J catheters. The patients in the two groups were predominantly men with stones located in the lumbar region and on the right side and with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m2. The stones had an average size of 0.9+/-0.12mm and 0.89+/-0.15mm, respectively (p=0.624). There was no statistically significant difference in stone-free rate between the two groups after the first session of ESWL (47.5% vs. 52.5%, p=0.502), the second (70% vs. 75%, p = 0.616), and the third session (85% vs. 87.5%, p=0.761). The rate of complications was similar in both groups (7.5% vs. 5%, p=0.761). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of double-J catheters inserted in patients with ureteral stones who underwent ESWL for infected hydronephrosis does not affect the stone-free rate of the procedure or the complication rate. The procedure of ESWL in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters inserted for infected hydronephrosis is a safe and efficient method that can be recommended as an initial treatment alongside retrograde ureteroscopy.

Factors Associated with Increased Risk of Urosepsis during Pregnancy and Treatment Outcomes, in a Urology Clinic.

Background and Objectives: Urosepsis is a significant cause of maternal and fetal mortality. While certain risk factors for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in pregnant women are well established, those associated with an elevated risk of urosepsis in pregnant women with upper UTIs remain less defined. This study aims to identify factors linked to an increased risk of urosepsis and examine urologic treatment outcomes in such cases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 66 pregnant women diagnosed with urosepsis over a nine-year period. A control group included 164 pregnant women with upper UTIs, excluding urosepsis, admitted during the same timeframe. This study highlights factors potentially contributing to urosepsis risk, including comorbidities like anemia, pregnancy-related hydronephrosis or secondary to reno-ureteral lithiasis, prior UTIs, coexisting urological conditions, and urologic procedures. Outcomes of urologic treatments, hospitalization duration, obstetric transfers due to fetal distress, and complications associated with double-J catheters were analyzed. Results: Pregnant women with urosepsis exhibited a higher prevalence of anemia (69.7% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.006), 2nd-3rd grade hydronephrosis (81.8% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.001), and fever over 38 °C (89.4% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.001). They also had a more intense inflammatory syndrome (leukocyte count 18,191 ± 6414 vs. 14,350 ± 3860/mmc, p = 0.001, and C-reactive protein (CRP) 142.70 ± 83.50 vs. 72.76 ± 66.37 mg/dL, p = 0.001) and higher creatinine levels (0.77 ± 0.81 vs. 0.59 ± 0.22, p = 0.017). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased risk for urosepsis were anemia (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.622, 95% CI 1.220-5.634), 2nd-3rd grade hydronephrosis (OR 6.581, 95% CI 2.802-15.460), and fever over 38 °C (OR 11.612, 95% CI 4.804-28.07). Regarding outcomes, the urosepsis group had a higher rate of urological maneuvers (87.9% vs. 36%, p = 0.001), a higher rate of obstetric transfers due to fetal distress (22.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.001), and migration of double-J catheters (6.1% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.016), but no maternal fatality was encountered. However, they experienced the same rate of total complications related to double-J catheters (19.69% vs. 12.80%, p > 0.05). The pregnant women in both groups had the infection more frequently on the right kidney, were in the second trimester and were nulliparous. Conclusions: Pregnant women at increased risk for urosepsis include those with anemia, hydronephrosis due to gestational, or reno-ureteral lithiasis, and fever over 38 °C. While the prognosis for pregnant women with urosepsis is generally favorable, urological intervention may not prevent a higher incidence of fetal distress and the need for obstetric transfers compared to pregnant women with uncomplicated upper UTIs.

Multidrug-Resistant (MDR) Urinary Tract Infections Associated with Gut Microbiota in CoV and Non-CoV Patients in a Urological Clinic during the Pandemic: A Single Center Experience.

The aim of the study was to compare the profile of COVID-19 (CoV)-infected patients with non-COVID-19 (non-CoV) patients who presented with a multidrug-resistant urinary tract infection (MDR UTI) associated with gut microbiota, as well as analyze the risk factors for their occurrence, the types of bacteria involved, and their spectrum of sensitivity. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study on patients admitted to the urology clinic of the "Parhon" Teaching Hospital in Iasi, Romania, between March 2020 and August 2022. The study group consisted of 22 CoV patients with MDR urinary infections associated with gut microbiota. For the control group, 66 non-CoV patients who developed MDR urinary infections associated with gut microbiota were selected. Electronic medical records were analyzed to determine demographics, characteristics, and risk factors. The types of urinary tract bacteria involved in the occurrence of MDR urinary infections and their sensitivity spectrum were also analyzed. RESULTS: Patients in both groups studied were over 60 years of age, with no differences in gender, environment of origin, and rate of comorbidities. Patients in the CoV group had a higher percentage of urosepsis (54.5% versus 21.2%, p < 0.05) and more hospitalization days (9.27 versus 6.09, p < 0.05). Regarding risk factors, the two groups had similar percentages of previous urologic interventions (95.45% versus 96.97%, p > 0.05), antibiotic therapy (77.3% versus 87.9%, p > 0.05), and the presence of permanent urinary catheters (77.27% versus 84.85%, p > 0.05). Escherichia coli (31.8% versus 42.4%, p > 0.05), Klebsiella spp. (22.7% versus 34.8%, p > 0.05), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (27.3% versus 9.1%, p > 0.05) were the most common urinary tract bacteria found in the etiology of MDR urinary infections in CoV and non-CoV patients. A high percentage of the involved MDR urinary tract bacteria were resistant to quinolones (71.4-76.2% versus 80.3-82%, p > 0.05) and cephalosporins (61.9-81% versus 63.9-83.6%, p > 0.05), both in CoV and non-CoV patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with urological interventions who remain on indwelling urinary catheters are at an increased risk of developing MDR urinary infections associated with gut microbiota resistant to quinolones and cephalosporins. Patients with MDR UTIs who have CoV-associated symptoms seem to have a higher rate of urosepsis and a longer hospitalization length.