The relationship between the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and the coronary collateral circulation in patients with chronic total occlusion

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies showed the association between the major adverse cardiovascular outcomes and both higher neutrophil and lower lymphocyte counts. We aimed to investigate whether there is an association between the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) value and the development of coronary collateral circulation (CCC) in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO).

METHODS

A total of 274 patients with CTO were included in this study. Patients were then classified according to their Rentrop collateral grades as either poor (Rentrop grades 0-1) or good (Rentrop grades 2-3). Clinical information and analyses of blood samples were obtained from a review of the patients' charts.

RESULTS

Although there was no difference between the two groups with regard to cardiovascular risk profiles, the NLR values were significantly higher in the patients who had poorly developed CCC (2.6 ± 0.5 vs 2.2 ± 0.4, p<0.001). NLR, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), age, diabetes, fasting glucose levels and body mass index were found to have univariate association with poorly developed CCC (p<0.1). In a multivariate logistic regression model, NLR (odds ratio 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37-2.74; p<0.001), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and WBC were found to be the independent predictors of poor CCC. In receiver operator characteristic curve analysis, the optimal cut-off value of NLR to predict poor CCC was found as 2.17, with 77% sensitivity and 65% specificity.

CONCLUSION

NLR, as a novel cardiovascular risk marker, is an important, simple and inexpensive method which can be used by the cardiologist as a screening inflammation tool to estimate the development of CCC in patients with CTO.

The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi

PURPOSE

We assess the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy for isolated lower pole nephrolithiasis, and compare it to that for isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We treated 714 renal units in 687 patients with isolated caliceal stones using a Lithostar lithotriptor (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany). The stones were localized in the lower, mid and upper calices in 455, 104 and 128 patients, respectively. Stone load was recorded in cm.2. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on stone burden. The energy and shock waves, use of anesthesia, number of treatment sessions, auxiliary measures and complications were noted. Patients were evaluated with intravenous urogram or plain film of kidneys, ureters and bladder, and ultrasonography when stone-free, or clinically significant residual fragment status, including nonobstructive and noninfectious insignificant fragments 4 mm. or less, was noted at the fluoroscopic control 2 to 4 weeks after the last session. Final clinically significant residual fragment decision was made 10 to 12 weeks after the last session. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was considered a failure if no fragmentation was noted after session 3 and continued if fragmentation was noted. Results regarding caliceal localization were compared.

RESULTS

Complete data were available on 591 renal units. Auxiliary procedures were used in 81 (14%) units before treatment. Anesthesia was given to 101 (17%) patients. The mean number of shock waves and energy used were 2,022 and 17.4 kV., respectively. The difference in shock wave, energy and treatment rate among 3 caliceal locations reached statistical significance only for energy delivered to the lower and upper calices. The effectiveness quotient of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was 36%, 46% and 41% for lower, middle and upper pole stone disease, respectively (p = 0.4). There was a highly significant correlation between stone-free and re-treatment rates, and stone burden. The overall stone-free rate was 66%, and 63%, 73% and 71% for lower, middle and upper caliceal stones, respectively (p = 0.1). For the group with stones greater than 2 cm.2 overall stone-free rate decreased to 49%, and 53%, 60% and 23% in lower, middle and upper caliceal locations, respectively. Overall, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy failed in 46 (7.7%) renal units. Steinstrasse developed in 39 (6.5%) patients who were then treated with repeat lithotripsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy appears to be successful for management of isolated caliceal stone disease. Treatment efficacy was not significantly different among stones localized in lower, middle and upper poles. We recommend it as the primary treatment of choice for stones less than 2.0 cm.2 in all caliceal locations. Treatment should be individualized for management of caliceal stones greater than 2.0 cm.2 until large prospective randomized trials comparing shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy are available.

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for stones in abnormal urinary tracts: analysis of results and comparison with normal urinary tracts

PURPOSE

We reviewed our experience with SWL for stones in abnormal urinary tracts and compared the results with those in normal urinary tracts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study group was composed of 2566 renal units (RU) treated on the Siemens Lithostar lithotripter at our SWL unit whose treatment and follow-up at 10 to 12 weeks were completed. Sixty-eight RUs (2.7%) belonged to 52 patients who had congenital upper urinary tract abnormalities. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the impact of age, stone size, location, and the type of abnormality on the outcome of the SWL in the abnormal RU. The student t-, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used for the comparison of stone load, number of treatment sessions, catheter placement, and success rates of the patients with normal and abnormal RU. Results of long-term follow-up for available patients (38 RU; 56%) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Age, stone load, stone location, and the type of abnormality did not have a statistically significant impact on the outcome of SWL for abnormal RU. The average stone load was 2.1 +/- 2.8 cm2 in the abnormal and 1.4 +/- 1.3 cm2 in the normal RU. Thus, the stone load was significantly higher in the abnormal RU (P < 0.05). In the abnormal group, 56% of the RU became stone free, 37% had nonobstructive and noninfectious clinically insignificant residual fragments < or = 4 mm (CIRF), and SWL failed in 7%. In the normal group, 78% of the RU became stone-free, 18.5% had CIRF, and SWL failed in 4%. There was no significant difference in the success rates in the groups if success was defined as stone free and CIRF together (P > 0.05). However, there was significant a difference when stone-free, CIRF, and failure rates were evaluated separately (P < 0.05). Recurrence, regrowth, and retreatment rates in abnormal RU were 50%, 37%, and 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the fragmentation rates were similar, clearance of the fragments was hampered in abnormal urinary tracts. Thus, especially for large stones, other endourologic treatment options should be considered. High recurrence and regrowth rates warrant careful monitoring and consideration for medical treatment during follow-up.