Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy.
ABSTRACT Study Type - Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Animal studies have shown that one approach to reduce SWL-induced renal injury is to pause treatment for 3-4 min early in the SWL-treatment protocol. However, there is typically no pause in treatment during clinical lithotripsy. We show in a porcine model that a pause in SWL treatment is unnecessary to achieve a reduction in renal injury if treatment is begun at a low power setting that generates low-amplitude SWs, and given continuously for ≈4 min before applying higher-amplitude SWs. OBJECTIVE: • To test the idea that a pause (≈3 min) in the delivery of shockwaves (SWs) soon after the initiation of SW lithotripsy (SWL) is unnecessary for achieving a reduction in renal injury, if treatment is begun at a low power setting that generates low-amplitude SWs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: • Anaesthetised female pigs were assigned to one of three SWL treatment protocols that did not involve a pause in SW delivery of >10 s (2000 SWs at 24 kV; 100 SWs at 12 kV +≈10-s pause + 2000 SWs at 24 kV; 500 SWs at 12 kV +≈10-s pause + 2000 SWs at 24 kV). • All SWs were delivered at 120 SWs/min using an unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotripter. • Renal function was measured before and after SWL. • The kidneys were then processed for quantification of the SWL-induced haemorrhagic lesion. Values for lesion size were compared to previous data collected from pigs in which treatment included a 3-min pause in SW delivery. RESULTS: • All SWL treatment protocols produced a similar degree of vasoconstriction (23-41% reduction in glomerular filtration rate and effective renal plasma flow) in the SW-treated kidney. • The mean renal lesion in pigs treated with 100 low-amplitude SWs delivered before the main dose of 2000 high-amplitude SWs (2.27% functional renal volume [FRV]) was statistically similar to that measured for pigs treated with 2000 SWs all at high-amplitude (3.29% FRV). • However, pigs treated with 500 low-amplitude SWs before the main SW dose had a significantly smaller lesion (0.44% FRV) that was comparable with the lesion in pigs from a previous study in which there was a 3-min pause in treatment separating a smaller initial dose of 100 low-amplitude SWs from the main dose of 2000 high-amplitude SWs (0.46% FRV). The time between the initiation of the low - and high-amplitude SWs was ≈4 min for these latter two groups compared with ≈1 min when there was negligible pause after the initial 100 low-amplitude SWs in the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: • Pig kidneys treated by SWL using a two-step low-to-high power ramping protocol were protected from injury with negligible pause between steps, provided the time between the initiation of low-amplitude SWs and switching to high-amplitude SWs was ≈4 min. • Comparison with results from previous studies shows that protection can be achieved using various step-wise treatment scenarios in which either the initial dose of SWs is delivered at low-amplitude for ≈4 min, or there is a definitive pause before resuming SW treatment at higher amplitude. • Thus, we conclude that renal protection can be achieved without instituting a pause in SWL treatment. It remains prudent to consider that renal protection depends on the acoustic and temporal properties of SWs administered at the beginning stages of a SWL ramping protocol, and that this may differ according to the lithotripter being used.
- SourceAvailable from: Sujuan Gao[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine if extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) at 60 shock waves (SWs)/min reduces renal damage and haemodynamic impairment compared to treatment at 120 SWs/min. One kidney in each of 19 juvenile pigs (7-8 weeks old) was treated at 120 or at 60 SWs/min (2000 SWs, 24 kV) with an unmodified HM-3 lithotripter (Dornier Medical Systems, Kennesaw, GA, USA). Renal function was determined before and after ESWL treatment by inulin clearance, extraction and clearance of para-aminohippuric acid. Both kidneys were then removed to measure parenchymal lesion size by sectioning the entire kidney and quantifying the size of the haemorrhagic lesion in each slice. ESWL at 60 SWs/min significantly reduced the size of the acute morphological lesion compared to 120 SWs/min (0.42% vs 3.93% of functional renal volume, P = 0.011) and blunted the decrease in glomerular filtration rate and renal plasma flow normally seen after treatment at 120 SWs/min. Treatment at a firing rate of 60 SWs/min produces less morphological injury and causes less alteration in renal haemodynamics than treatment at 120 SWs/min in the pig model of ESWL-induced renal injury.BJU International 04/2009; 104(7):1004-8. · 3.05 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lithotripsy shock waves (SW) to one renal pole damage that pole but protect the opposite pole from the damage inflicted by another, immediate application of SW. This study investigated whether the protection (1) occurs when the first treatment causes no injury, (2) is caused by SW or injury, (3) exhibits a threshold, and (4) occurs when the same pole receives both treatments. Six- to 7-wk-old anesthetized female pigs were studied. The following groups were studied: group 1 (n=4), 2000 SW at 12 kV to one pole and 2000 SW at 24 kV (standard) to the opposite pole; group 2 (n=6), same as group 1 except 500 12-kV SW pretreatment; group 3 (n=8), 500 12-kV, 2000 standard SW, all to the same pole; and group 4 (n=8), same as group 3 except 100 12-kV SW pretreatment. Mean+/-SD lesion size in group 1, first pole treated, was 0.66+/-0.82% of functional renal volume (FRV; P<0.05 versus 5.22+/-3.6% FRV with no pretreatment [NP]; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.0 to -2.1) and 0.50+/-0.68% FRV in the opposite pole after 2000 standard SW (P<0.05 versus NP; 95% CI -9.4 to -0.08). Mean lesion size (first pole) in group 2 was 0.020+/-0.028% FRV (P<0.01 versus NP; 95% CI -9.2 to -1.2) and 0.43+/-0.54% FRV in the opposite pole after 2000 standard SW (P<0.05 versus NP; 95% CI -8.8 to -0.82). Same-pole SW (groups 3 and 4) also protected. Mean lesion sizes were 0.28+/-0.33% (P<0.01 versus NP; 95% CI -8.0 to -1.9) in group 3 and 0.39+/-0.48% FRV (P<0.01 versus NP; 95% CI -8.2 to -1.7) in group 4. It is concluded that the pretreatment protocol substantially limits the renal injury that normally is caused by SWL and occurs when the pretreatment and standard SW are applied to the same pole. The threshold for the protection may be <100 SW.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 04/2006; 17(3):663-73. · 8.99 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The relationship between kidney size and impaired renal function induced by shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) was examined in 6- and 10-wk-old anesthetized pigs. Each pig received 2000 shock waves, 24 kV, or sham SWL to the lower pole calyx of one kidney. Bilateral GFR, renal plasma flow (RPF), and para-aminohippurate extraction was measured 1 h before and 1 and 4 h after SWL. The kidneys were then removed for morphometric analysis. Mean kidney weights were 66.1+/-2.7 g (n = 9) and 103.1+/-3.3 g (n = 8) in the SWL groups, and 60.1+/-2.6 g (n = 9) and 82.3+/-4.0 g (n = 9) in the sham-SWL groups. SWL-induced lesions occupied a significantly greater volume of the small kidneys (6.1+/-1.7 vol % versus 1.5+/-0.2 vol% in the large kidneys). RPF was significantly reduced by SWL in small and large kidneys, but to a significantly greater extent in small kidneys. RPF was also significantly reduced in the contralateral kidneys of both groups, but only at 1 h after SWL. SWL significantly reduced GFR to similar degrees in both kidneys of both groups, regardless of kidney size. Para-aminohippurate extraction was likewise reduced to similar degrees in both groups, but this effect was evident only in the SWL-treated kidneys, and only in the pole to which the shock waves had been applied. The injury induced by SWL affected a larger fraction of small kidneys than large ones, and the renal vasoconstriction induced by SWL was greatest in small kidneys.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 09/1999; 10(8):1753-62. · 8.99 Impact Factor