Management of Obstructed Infected Kidney Clinical Trial
Official title:
Internal Ureteral Stent Versus Percutaneous Nephrostomy Tube in Management of Acutely Obstructed Infected Kidney in the Presence Upper Urinary Tract Stones: A Prospective, Randomized Study
| NCT number | NCT03498794 |
| Other study ID # | US VS PCN |
| Secondary ID | |
| Status | Completed |
| Phase | N/A |
| First received | |
| Last updated | |
| Start date | March 5, 2019 |
| Est. completion date | April 1, 2020 |
| Verified date | May 2020 |
| Source | Assiut University |
| Contact | n/a |
| Is FDA regulated | No |
| Health authority | |
| Study type | Interventional |
Non-malignant causes of ureter obstruction can be intrinsic such as stone disease, ureter
stricture or congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction, or extrinsic such as idiopathic
retro peritoneal fibrosis. Nearly all clinicians agree that obstructing stones, with a
concern for sepsis require immediate decompression of the urinary system.
Though large epidemiologic studies of the management of obstructed infected nephrolithiasis
demonstrate higher rates of sepsis and mortality associated with PCN placement relative to
ureteral stenting, the observational nature of the analysis highlights the need for
prospective analyses of PCN vs stenting for obstructive nephrolithiasis.
Despite this obvious need, there are few studies comparing the efficacy of ureteral stenting
vs PCN in the setting of obstructive urolithiasis. The choice between PCN and stenting is
often made by the urologist at initial presentation and can be influenced by factors
including disease severity, stone size, location of stone, eventual modality of definitive
stone management, or even availability of in-house interventional radiology services.
Retrospective studies reveal that both procedures have high success rates. In the setting of
unsuccessful stenting, PCN is often successful, but the contrary is not always true.
Furthermore, patients are often selected for PCN over ureteral stenting in the setting of
larger stones and if they are more severely ill.
Goldsmith et al studied 130 patients who underwent decompression for obstructing ureteral
stone with PCN or stent placement. Although patients who underwent PCN placement had longer
hospital stay, other outcomes such as time to definitive stone management, rates of
spontaneous stone passage, and initiation of stone metabolic workup were not statistically
different. The authors noted that the method of initial decompression correlated with
eventual approach selected for definitive stone management. Patients treated with PCN were
more likely to undergo percutaneous definitive management, while patients managed with
ureteral stenting were more likely to be treatked with a ureteroscopic approach.
Two prospective studies comparing PCN vs stent management of obstructing ureteral stones have
conflicting outcomes. Mokhmalji et al 6 in 2001 prospectively randomized 40 patients to
receive either PCN or stent. Sixteen out of twenty stents were successfully placed while all
twenty PCNs were successfully placed initially. All unsuccessful stents were successfully
managed by PCN. Their results demonstrated that stent utilization was less successful as
compared to PCN and there was a trend for longer antibiotic therapy due to persistent signs
of urinary tract infection in patients who underwent stent placement.
In contrast, Pearle et al randomized 42 patients to receive PCN vs stents. This study failed
to demonstrate one procedure to be more successful than the other. All 21stents and 20 out of
21 PCNs were successfully placed. One failed PCN successfully underwent stent placement.
Their results demonstrated an increased incidence of bacterial urinary colonization
post-procedure in the PCN group as compared to the stent group, but overall no differences in
time to clinical improvement or length of stay were noted.
| Status | Completed |
| Enrollment | 2 |
| Est. completion date | April 1, 2020 |
| Est. primary completion date | March 10, 2020 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
| Gender | All |
| Age group | 18 Years to 80 Years |
| Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: 1. Adult Patients with infected hydronephrosis. 2. Infected hydronephrosis due to ureteric stone or ureteric stricture. 3. Uremic and non uremic patients. Exclusion Criteria: - Patients with a contraindication to either form of drainage (uncorrected coagulopathy, urethral stricture disease, bladder outlet obstruction, pregnancy, ureteral stone greater than 15 mm., or Steinstrasse). |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Egypt | Mahmoud magdy | Assiut |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Assiut University |
Egypt,
Ahmad I, Saeed Pansota M, Tariq M, Shahzad Saleem M, Ali Tabassum S, Hussain A. Comparison between Double J (DJ) Ureteral Stenting and Percutaneous Nephrostomy (PCN) in Obstructive Uropathy. Pak J Med Sci. 2013 May;29(3):725-9. — View Citation
Goldsmith ZG, Oredein-McCoy O, Gerber L, Bañez LL, Sopko DR, Miller MJ, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME. Emergent ureteric stent vs percutaneous nephrostomy for obstructive urolithiasis with sepsis: patterns of use and outcomes from a 15-year experience. BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(2):E122-8. doi: 10.1111/bju.12161. — View Citation
Lynch MF, Anson KM, Patel U. Current opinion amongst radiologists and urologists in the UK on percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteric stent insertion for acute renal unobstruction: Results of a postal survey. BJU Int. 2006 Dec;98(6):1143-4. — View Citation
Mokhmalji H, Braun PM, Martinez Portillo FJ, Siegsmund M, Alken P, Köhrmann KU. Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stents for diversion of hydronephrosis caused by stones: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2001 Apr;165(4):1088-92. — View Citation
Pearle MS, Pierce HL, Miller GL, Summa JA, Mutz JM, Petty BA, Roehrborn CG, Kryger JV, Nakada SY. Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1998 Oct;160(4):1260-4. — View Citation
Sammon JD, Ghani KR, Karakiewicz PI, Bhojani N, Ravi P, Sun M, Sukumar S, Trinh VQ, Kowalczyk KJ, Kim SP, Peabody JO, Menon M, Trinh QD. Temporal trends, practice patterns, and treatment outcomes for infected upper urinary tract stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64(1):85-92. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.035. Epub 2012 Sep 25. — View Citation
Yoshimura K, Utsunomiya N, Ichioka K, Ueda N, Matsui Y, Terai A. Emergency drainage for urosepsis associated with upper urinary tract calculi. J Urol. 2005 Feb;173(2):458-62. — View Citation
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Ureteral stent vs percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) for drainage obstructed infected kidney | To compare between Ureteral stent versus Percutaneous Nephrostomy tube (PCN) in management of obstructed infected kidney by Improvement of infection clinically by decreasing high body temperature. | 2 years from April 2018 to may 2020 |