A randomized prospective study: assessment of transient ureteral stenting by mono-J insertion after primary URS and stone extraction (FaST 3).

To compare the outcome of a short-term insertion of a mono-J catheter for 6 h following ureteroscopic stone removal to a conventional double-J catheter. This single-center academic study (Fast Track Stent study 3) evaluated stenting in 108 patients with urinary calculi after ureterorenoscopy. Patients were prospectively randomized into two study arms before primary ureterorenoscopy: (1) mono-J insertion for 6 h after ureterorenoscopy and (2) double-J insertion for 3-5 days after ureterorenoscopy. Study endpoints were stent-related symptoms assessed by an ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) and reintervention rates. Stone sizes and location, age, operation duration, BMI, and gender were recorded. Of 67 patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy, 36 patients were analyzed in the double-J arm and 31 patients in the mono-J arm. Mean operation time was 27.5 ± 1.3 min versus 24.0 ± 1.3 min, and stone size was 5.2 mm versus 4.5 mm for mono-J versus double-J, respectively (p = 0.06 and p = 0.15). FaST 3 was terminated early due to a high reintervention rate of 35.5% for the mono-J group and 16.7% for the double-J group (p = 0.27). One day after ureterorenoscopy, USSQ scores were similar between the study arms (Urinary Index: p = 0.09; Pain Index: p = 0.67). However, after 3-5 weeks, the Pain Index was significantly lower in those patients who had a double-J inserted after ureterorenoscopy (p = 0.04). Short-term insertion of mono-J post-ureterorenoscopy results in similar micturition symptoms and pain one day after ureterorenoscopy compared to double-J insertion. The reintervention rate was non-significant between the treatment groups most likely due to the early termination of the study (p = 0.27). Ethics approval/Trail Registration: No. 18-6435, 2018.

Transient stent placement versus tubeless procedure after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery stone extraction (Fast Track Stent study 2): A randomized prospective evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether in pre-stented patients undergoing ureteroscopic stone removal (ureteroscopy retrograde surgery) a tubeless procedure provides a better outcome compared with short-term (6 h) ureteral stenting using an external ureteral catheter. METHODS: In this single academic center study (Fast Track Stent study 2), carried out between May 2016 and April 2018, 121 patients with renal or ureteral calculi were initially treated with double-J insertion. Before secondary ureteroscopy retrograde surgery, patients were prospectively randomized into two groups: tubeless versus ureteral catheter insertion for 6 h after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery. Exclusion criteria were acute urinary tract infection, solitary kidney or stone diameter >25 mm. Study end-points were stent-related symptoms assessed by a validated questionnaire (ureteral stent symptom questionnaire), administered both before and 4 weeks after surgery. Numerical ureteral stent symptom questionnaire scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney-U-test. The level of significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy retrograde surgery procedures carried out by 13 surgeons resulted in >90% stone removal in all patients (n = 121), with a mean operation time of 19.9 versus 18.0 min for ureteral catheter versus tubeless, respectively (P = 0.37). Patient groups did not differ significantly in their ureteral stent symptom questionnaire scores (urinary index P = 0.24; pain index P = 0.35). Patients showed a significant preference for tubeless procedure over ureteral catheter reinsertion (Question GQ P < 0.0001). The reintervention rate was 13.3% for the tubeless procedure (n = 8) and 1.6% for the ureteral catheter group (n = 1), respectively (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term ureteral catheter and no stent insertion after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery stone extraction in pre-stented patients result in comparable quality of life. However, the reintervention rate is higher for tubeless procedures.

(Cleaved) CK18 serum and tissue expression levels differentiate acute HCV reinfection from acute rejection in liver allografts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the sole therapeutic option to cure end-stage liver diseases including HCV-related cirrhosis. Timely and precise differentiation of relevant acute HCV reinfection from acute rejection after OLT is vital for appropriate therapy. Aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of (non-) invasive apoptosis (M30) and necrosis (M65) determination in the differential diagnosis of acute (and chronic) HCV reinfection vs. acute rejection in liver allografts. METHODS: Serum samples and liver biopsy tissues were available from 76 patients including a control group (19× NAFL, 19× NASH, 16× acute rejection, 11× acute and 11× chronic HCV reinfection) and were analysed using M30- and M65 ELISAs (M30S, M65S) and M30-immunohistochemistry (M30H). Clinical and serological data were collected. RESULTS: M30S, M65S and M30H were highly correlated with diagnostic groups in the total cohort (all P < 0.0001). M30S, M65S and M30H were independently able to differentiate acute HCV reinfection from acute rejection (P = 0.048, P = 0.001, P = 0.010) with moderate to excellent diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, cut-off-value in M30S: 70%, 75%, 1025 U/L; M65S: 100%, 92%, 1308 U/L; M30H: 73%, 88%, 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: M30-, M65-ELISAs and M30-immunohistochemistry are potential useful tools in differentiating acute HCV reinfection from acute rejection facilitating both speed and accuracy of the diagnostic process for the clinician and hepatopathologist. In this context, M65S provided superior diagnostic characteristics compared to M30-based methods. However, being the first analysis of (cleaved) CK18 serum and tissue expression levels in this context, the results need to be verified in further studies.

Adverse effects of α-ketoglutarate/malate in a rat model of acute kidney injury.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is the most common kidney disease in hospitalized patients with high mortality. Ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) is one of the major causes of AKI. The combination of α-ketoglutarate+malate (αKG/MAL) showed the ability to reduce hypoxia-induced damage to isolated proximal tubules. The present study utilizes a rat model of I/R-induced AKI accompanied by intensive biomonitoring to examine whether αKG/MAL provides protection in vivo. AKI was induced in male Sprague-Dawley rats by bilateral renal clamping (40 min) followed by reperfusion (240 min). αKG/MAL was infused continuously for 60 min before and 45 min after ischemia. Normoxic and I/R control groups received 0.9% NaCl solution. The effect of αKG/MAL was evaluated by biomonitoring, blood and plasma parameters, histopathology, and immunohistochemical staining for kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), as well as by determination of tissue ATP and nonesterified fatty acid concentrations. Intravenous infusion of αKG/MAL at a cumulative dose of 1 mmol/kg each (146 mg/kg αKG and 134 mg/kg MAL) did not prevent I/R-induced increases in plasma creatinine, histopathological alterations, or cortical ATP depletion. On the contrary, the most notable adverse affect in animals receiving αKG/MAL was the decrease in mean arterial blood pressure, which was also accompanied by a reduction in heart rate. Supplementation with αKG/MAL, which is very protective against hypoxia-induced injury in isolated proximal tubules, does not protect against I/R-induced renal injury in vivo, possibly due to cardiovascular depressive effects.