The Effect of Antiplatelet Agents on Bleeding-Related Complications After Ureteroscopy

Japanese survey of perioperative complications and ureteral stricture after ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones in multicenter collaborative study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate perioperative complications and the details of postoperative ureteral stricture after ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS-L) for upper urinary tract stones in Japan.

METHODS

Patient data on intra- and postoperative complications after ureteroscopy using URS-L were retrospectively collected from multiple centers in Japan between April 2017 and March 2020 with the cooperation of the Japanese Society of Endourology and Robotics. Data included the number of patients undergoing URS-L, number and type of intra- and postoperative complications, and detailed characteristics of postoperative ureteral stricture.

RESULTS

In total, 14 125 patients underwent URS-L over 3 years at 82 institutions. Annual URS-L numbers gradually increased from 4419 in 2017, to 4760 in 2018, and 4946 in 2019. The total complication rate was 10.5%, which was divided into intra-operative complications in 1.40% and postoperative complications in 9.18%. The annual incidences of intra- and postoperative complications were not significantly different from year to year (p = 0.314 and p = 0.112). Ureteral perforation, ureteral avulsion, and the intra-operative conversion rate were 1.35%, 0.03%, and 0.02%, respectively. Fever >38°C, septic shock, blood transfusion, and postoperative mortality were 7.44%, 0.81%, 0.07%, and 0.04%, respectively. Ureteral stricture occurred in 0.8% of cases. The median length of stricture site was 10.0 mm and the success rate of stricture treatment was 54.6%.

CONCLUSION

Although URS-L utilization has increased in Japan, the annual complication rate has remained steady. Although URS-L is a useful and less invasive procedure, devastating complications can still occur.

The Effect of Pre-Stenting on Bleeding-Related Complications Following Ureteroscopy in Patients on Anticoagulation or Antiplatelet Therapy

Introduction: The American Urological Association guidelines state that continuing anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) agents during ureteroscopy (URS) is safe. Through a multi-institutional retrospective study, we sought to determine whether pre-stenting in patients on AP or AC was associated with fewer URS bleeding-related complications. Methods: A series of 8614 URS procedures performed across three institutions (April 2010 to September 2017) was electronically reviewed for AC/AP use at time of URS. Records indicating AC or AP use at time of URS were then manually reviewed to characterize intraoperative and 30-day postoperative (intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hematuria, emergency department visits, hospital readmission, unplanned reoperation, phone calls, and other minor 30-day complications). Results: A total of 293 identified URS procedures were completed on patients on AC/AP therapy-112 cases were on AC only (38 were pre-stented), 158 on AP only (51 pre-stented), and 23 on both AP and AC (8 pre-stented). Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the pre-stented and non-pre-stented groups. For AC and AP subjects, pre-stenting did not decrease the composite risk of bleeding complications (10.3% pre-stent vs 12.2% non-prestent, p = 0.6). Pre-stented patients did have a significantly lower likelihood of requiring an unplanned reoperation (1.0% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04). In the subgroup of patients on AP alone, pre-stented patients had significantly fewer episodes of intraoperative bleeding (0% vs 9%, p = 0.04), unplanned reoperations (0% vs 6.5%, p = 0.02), and 30-day complications (14% vs 27%, p = 0.05). In the subgroup of patients on AC alone, there were no significant differences in outcomes based on stent status. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional study, we found that pre-stenting before URS was not associated with fewer bleeding complications. However, pre-stenting appeared to be associated with improved outcomes for those patients on AP therapy. These results suggest a need for prospective studies to clarify the role of pre-stenting for URS.

Ureteroscopic and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: continuation or discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs? A Chinese survey among urologists

PURPOSE

To evaluate the management of antithrombotic drugs made by different urologists before ureteroscopic lithotripsy and flexible ureteroscopy in stone patients undergoing active anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to 613 urologists in China, which included personal work information and views on the management of anticoagulants (AC) or antiplatelet (AP) drugs during the perioperative period of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS).

RESULTS

20.5% of urologists believed that AP drugs could be continued and 14.7% believed that AC drugs could be continued. 26.1% of the urologists who participated in more than 100 ureteroscopic lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy surgeries each year believed that AP drugs could be continued and 19.1% believed that AC drugs could be continued, compared with 13.6% (P < 0.01) and 9.2% (P < 0.01) of the urologists who performed less than 100 surgeries. Among the urologists with more than 20 cases undergoing active AC or AP therapy per year, 25.9% thought that AP drugs could be continued and 19.7% thought that AC drugs could be continued, compared with 17.1% (P = 0.008) and 11.5% (P = 0.005) of the urologists with less than 20 cases.

CONCLUSION

The decision on the continuation of AC or AP drugs before ureteroscopic and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy should be individualized. The experience in URL and fURS surgeries and in dealing with patients under AC or AP therapy is the influencing factor.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To set out the second in a series of guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the aim of providing a clinical framework for urologists performing RIRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive search of RIRS-related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided.

RESULTS

A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri-operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications.

CONCLUSION

The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.

Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Calculus

The aim of this article is to illustrate a step-by-step guide to flexible ureteroscopy (URS) for treatment of upper urinary tract calculus. Preoperative evaluation of the patient with focus on comorbidities is paramount for the type of stone procedure to be performed. In this article, the steps of operating room setup, patient positioning, gaining access to the upper urinary tract, flexible URS, laser lithotripsy, basket extraction of stone fragments, and placement of a ureteral stent are described. The importance of clearance of the ureter before flexible URS in the case of pre-existing ureteral stone is also described.

Ureteroscopy in Patients Taking Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Therapy: Practice Patterns and Outcomes in a Surgical Collaborative

PURPOSE

AUA guidelines recommend ureteroscopy as first line therapy for patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and advocate using a ureteral access sheath. We examined practice patterns and unplanned health care use for these patients in Michigan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) clinical registry we identified ureteroscopy cases from 2016 to 2019. We assessed outcomes and adherence to guidelines based on therapy at time of ureteroscopy: 1) anticoagulant: continuous warfarin or novel oral agent therapy; 2) antiplatelet: continuous clopidogrel or aspirin therapy; 3) control: not on anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy. We fit multivariate models to assess anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy association with emergency department visits, hospitalization and ureteral access sheath use.

RESULTS

In total, 9,982 ureteroscopies were performed across 31 practices with 3.1% and 7.8% on anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy, respectively. There were practice (0% to 21%) and surgeon (0% to 35%) variations in performing ureteroscopy on patients on anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy regardless of volume. After adjusting for risk factors, anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy was not associated with emergency department visits. Hospitalization rates in anticoagulant, antiplatelet and control groups were 4.3%, 5.5% and 3.2%, respectively, and significantly increased with antiplatelet therapy (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02-2.14). Practice-level ureteral access sheath use varied (23% to 100%) and was not associated with anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy. Limitations include inability to risk stratify between type/dosage of anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

We found practice-level and surgeon-level variation in performing ureteroscopy while on anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy. Ureteroscopy on anticoagulant is safe. However, antiplatelet therapy increases the risk of hospitalization. Despite guideline recommendations, ureteral access sheath use is not associated with anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy.

Predicting the Impacted Ureteral Stone with Computed Tomography

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether preoperative computed tomography (CT) findings could predict the presence of an impacted stone. Preoperative identification of an impacted ureteral stone may influence patient preparation and operative decisions. Factors predicting ureteral stone impaction have not been clearly identified.

METHODS

We identified all patients from June 2014 to July 2016 that underwent ureteroscopic treatment of an impacted ureteral stone. Patients that had ureteral prestenting or previous treatment for their stone were excluded. Noncontrast CT images were reviewed to calculate stone size, stone volume, degree of hydronephrosis (0-3), and Hounsfield units (HU) of the stone as well as the ureter distal and proximal to the stone. These were compared with a control group of patients that had nonimpacted stones.

RESULTS

Patients with impacted stones had a greater stone size, volume, HU of the ureter under the stone, HU under/above ratio, and degree of hydronephrosis on univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that HU under the stone was a significant predictor of ureteral stone impaction (odds ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.25). Distal ureteral density above 27 HU demonstrated a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 85%, positive predictive value of 89%, and negative predictive value of 81% for ureteral stone impaction.

CONCLUSION

Impacted stones are associated with ureteral density cut-off value of 27 HU or greater. Measuring this value on preoperative noncontrast CT may help predict which patients are more likely to have impacted stones.

Ureteroscopy in Patients with Bleeding Diatheses, Anticoagulated, and on Anti-Platelet Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Ureteroscopy (URS) is the most common surgical treatment of urolithiasis and can be problematic in patients with a bleeding diathesis. The intent of this review is to systematically review the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopic procedures in these groups of patients.

METHODS

The systematic review was performed according to the Cochrane diagnostic accuracy review guidelines. The search strategy was conducted to perform a comprehensive database search (1990-2017). A cumulative analysis was done and where applicable a comparative analysis between bleeding diathesis patients and those without.

RESULTS

Eight studies included were all published between 1998 and 2016 with the total number of participants with bleeding diatheses being 1109 with an age range of 18-97. Overall stone-free rate across the studies was 90.8% vs 86.2% in the control group. There was no significant difference in complications between the bleeding diathesis group and control group (N = 12,757, p = 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92, 6.02, I₂ = 78%). Pooled analysis for bleeding-related complications shows a statistically significant difference favoring the control arm (N = 12,757, p ≤ 0.0001, 95% CI 1.81, 5.73, I₂ = 0%). Pooled analysis for thrombosis shows no statistically significant difference between the bleeding diathesis group and the control arm (N = 118, p = 0.67, 95% CI 0.23, 9.86, I₂ = 48%).

CONCLUSION

The use of URS with or without the holmium laser is a safe and efficient modality for treating patients with urolithiasis who also have a bleeding diathesis or are anticoagulated or on antiplatelet agents. However, this review would suggest that the increased risk of procedure related bleeding is not insignificant and a patient-centered approach should be taken with regards to continuing these agents or not correcting bleeding diatheses.