Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Both shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) are recommended as the first choice for non-lower pole kidney stones. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of SWL versus F-URS in patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm under the COVID-19 pandemic. This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or F-URS) for non-lower pole kidney stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, and cost were recorded. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. A total of 699 patients were finally included, of which 81.3% (568) were treated with SWL and 18.7% (131) underwent F-URS. After PSM, SWL showed equivalent SFR (87.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.323), retreatment rate (8.6% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.169), and adjunctive procedure (2.6% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.385) compared with F-URS. Complications were scarce and also comparable between SWL and F-URS (6.0% vs 7.7%, P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral perforation was higher in the F-URS group compared with the SWL group (1.5% vs 0%, P = 0.008). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (1200 vs 30,083, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the F-URS group. This prospective cohort demonstrated that SWL had equivalent efficacy with more safety and cost benefits than F-URS in treating patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS. These findings may guide clinical practice.

Development and validation of a predictive model for treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones during the COVID-19 pandemic: in a large prospective cohort.

The predictors of treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) are not well characterized. Therefore, based on a large prospective cohort, we aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting treatment outcome after emergency SWL in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones. The development cohort included 358 patients with symptomatic ureteral stones who underwent emergency SWL between June 2020 and August 2021 in our hospital. One hundred and twenty-nine patients with symptomatic ureteral stones participated in the validation cohort from September 2021 to April 2022. The data were prospectively recorded. The backward stepwise selection was applied using the likelihood ratio test with Akaike's information criterion as the stopping rule. The efficacy of this predictive model was assessed concerning its clinical usefulness, calibration, and discrimination. Finally, 15.6% (56/358) of patients in the development cohort and 14.0% (18/129) of those in the validation cohort suffered from stone-free failure after emergency SWL. We identified four predictors for stone-free failure: stone size, stone density, skin to stone distance (SSD), and degree of hydronephrosis. This model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.935 (0.899-0.971) and good calibration (P = 0.059). The decision curve analysis showed that the model was clinically valuable. In this large prospective cohort, we found that stone size, stone density, SSD, and degree of hydronephrosis were predictors of treatment outcome after emergency SWL. This nomogram will be helpful in preoperative risk stratification to provide individualized treatment recommendations for each patient. Furthermore, early identification and appropriate management of patients may increase the success rate of emergency SWL during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. CONCLUSION: This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones.

Does quality of life in patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy change with repeat procedures: a prospective pilot study from a teaching hospital.

Introduction: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a well-established treatment for kidney stone disease (KSD) and despite its decreased popularity in the past, it has now gained renewed interest due to its minimally invasive nature and good outcomes, especially in the face of COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of our study was to perform a service evaluation to analyse and identify quality of life (QoL) changes [using Urinary Stones and Intervention Quality of Life (USIQoL) questionnaire] after repeat SWL treatments. This would enable a greater understanding of SWL treatment and reduce the current gap of knowledge regarding patient specific outcomes in the field. Material and methods: Patients affected by urolithiasias underwent SWL treatment between September 2021 and February 2022 (6 months), were included in the study. A questionnaire was given to the patients in each SWL session and consisted of three main topic areas: a domain on Pain and Physical Health, on Psycho-social Health and on Work (see appendix below). Patients also completed a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in relation to the pain related to the treatment. Data from the questionnaires were collected and analysed. Results: A total of 31 patients filled in two or more surveys, with a mean age of 55.8 years. On repeat treatments, pain and physical health domain was significantly better (p = 0.0046), psycho-social health domain was significantly better (p <0.001), work domain was significantly better (p = 0.009) and a correlation [on Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] was observed between pain decreasing in subsequent SWL procedures. Conclusions: Our study found that the choice of SWL to treat KSD does improve a patient's QoL. This could be related to improvement of physical health, psychological and social wellbeing, and ability to work. Higher QoL and low pain scores are observed in relation to repeat SWL treatment and are not directly associated to stone-free status.

Primary Definitive Treatment versus Ureteric Stenting in the Management of Acute Ureteric Colic: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objectives: To analyze the differences in cost-effectiveness between primary ureteroscopy and ureteric stenting in patients with ureteric calculi in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Patients requiring emergency intervention for a ureteric calculus at a tertiary centre were analysed between January and December 2019. The total secondary care cost included the cost of the procedure, inpatient hospital bed days, emergency department (A&E) reattendances, ancillary procedures and any secondary definitive procedure. Results: A total of 244 patients were included. Patients underwent ureteric stenting (62.3%) or primary treatment (37.7%), including primary ureteroscopy (URS) (34%) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (3.6%). The total secondary care cost was more significant in the ureteric stenting group (GBP 4485.42 vs. GBP 3536.83; p = 0.65), though not statistically significant. While mean procedural costs for primary treatment were significantly higher (GBP 2605.27 vs. GBP 1729.00; p < 0.001), costs in addition to the procedure itself were significantly lower (GBP 931.57 vs. GBP 2742.35; p < 0.001) for primary treatment compared to ureteric stenting. Those undergoing ureteric stenting had a significantly higher A&E reattendance rate compared with primary treatment (25.7% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.02) and a significantly greater cost per patient related to revisits to A&E (GBP 61.05 vs. GBP 20.87; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Primary definitive treatment for patients with acute ureteric colic, although associated with higher procedural costs than ureteric stenting, infers a significant reduction in additional expenses, notably related to fewer A&E attendances. This is particularly relevant in the COVID-19 era, where it is crucial to avoid unnecessary attendances to A&E and reduce the backlog of delayed definitive procedures. Primary treatment should be considered concordance with clinical judgement and factors such as patient preference, equipment availability and operator experience.

Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can be achieved either by fragmentation and extraction or dusting with spontaneous passage. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the safety and stone-free rate after RIRS by comparing the techniques of dusting vs fragmentation/extraction. Material and methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The inverse variance of the mean difference and 95% Confidence Interval (CI), Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. Results: There were 1141 patients included in 10 studies. Stone size was up to 2.5 cm All studies used holmium laser for lithotripsy. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in surgical time (MD -5.39 minutes 95% CI -13.92-2.31, p = 0.16), postoperative length of stay (MD -0.19 days 95% CI -0.60 - -0.22, p=0.36), overall complications (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.58-1.66, p = 0.95), hematuria (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.30-3.42, p = 0.99), postoperative fever (OR 0.70 95% CI 0.41-1.19, p = 0.19) and sepsis (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.10-10.35, p = 0.98), immediate (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.13-1.24, p = 0.11) and overall stone-free rate (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.43-1.32, p = 0.33), and retreatment rate (OR 1.35 95% CI 0.57-3.20, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: This systematic review infers that urologists can safely use either option of fragmentation and basket extraction or dusting without extraction to achieve similar outcomes as both techniques are similar for efficacy and safety.

ROCK AND ROLL AND LASER IN BETWEEN: BRONCHOSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY

SESSION TITLE: Case Reports of Procedure Treatments Posters SESSION TYPE: Case Report Posters PRESENTED ON: 10/19/2022 12:45 pm - 01:45 pm INTRODUCTION: Broncholiths are calcifications in the tracheobronchial tree that are most commonly associated with indolent infections. Disease manifestations range from asymptomatic stones in the airway to major complications such as massive hemoptysis or post-obstructive pneumonias. Depending on severity of the disease, patient management can range from conservative strategies to surgical interventions. We report successful reduction of a large obstructive broncholith in the right middle lobe via Holmium-yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripsy. CASE PRESENTATION: Patient is a 55 year old male who presented with on going purulent cough, fever and pleuritic chest pain for 3 months. He had associated weight loss (>10 lbs in 3 months), malaise, increased fatigue, and scant hemoptysis. Initial chest x-ray was evident of right middle lobe consolidation. Respiratory infection panel, COVID PCR, AFB cultures and fungal cultures were negative. Subsequent CT of his chest showed right middle lobe opacities with areas of obstruction with a broncholith. Subsequently, patient underwent rigid bronchoscopy to allow for left sided airway protection via direct tamponade if patient develops massive hemoptysis. A bronchoscopic inspection was performed through the rigid scope that confirmed the broncholith. Obliteration of broncholith was then performed via Ho:YAG. After multiple laser treatments, we noted improvement in the size of the broncholith. Patient admitted to significant improvement in chest pain, hemoptysis and cough since the procedure. DISCUSSION: Broncholithiasis refers to calcified material eroding the tracheobronchial tree and causing inflammation and obstruction. Etiology of broncholiths include calcified peribronchiolar lymph nodes that erode into the airway lumen. Lymph node calcifications in the thorax are associated with lymphadenitis from fungal or mycobacterial infections. Management depends on the size of broncholiths. For larger stones, flexible bronchoscopy is often used to confirm diagnosis. When forceps extraction is not feasible, stone fragmentation with Ho:YAG is generally utilized, but they carry the risk of massive hemoptysis or bronchial injury. Surgical interventions, such as lobectomy or pneumonectomy, are reserved for patients with recurrent pneumonias, bronchiectasis, bronchial stenosis or broncho-esophageal or aorto-tracheal fistulas. In our case, we demonstrate successful reduction of a non-mobile broncholith by protecting the airway using rigid bronchoscopy by interventional pulmonology and subsequently avoiding surgical intervention in a patient with repeated post-obstructive pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Management of broncholiths should be individualized for symptomatic patients. A comprehensive assessment with appropriate imaging and involvement of interventional pulmonology can result in successful reduction of the stone and minimizing complications. Reference #1: Dakkak, M., Siddiqi, F., & Cury, J. D. (2015). Broncholithiasis presenting as bronchiectasis and recurrent pneumonias. Case Reports, 2015, bcr2014209035. Reference #2: Krishnan, S., Kniese, C. M., Mankins, M., Heitkamp, D. E., Sheski, F. D., & Kesler, K. A. (2018).Management of broncholithiasis. Journal of thoracic disease, 10(Suppl 28), S3419. Reference #3: Olson, E. J., Utz, J. P., & Prakash, U. B. (1999). Therapeutic bronchoscopy in broncholithiasis. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 160(3), 766-770 DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Jalal Damani No relevant relationships by Joseph Gatuz No relevant relationships by Fereshteh (Angel) Yazdi

Shock Wave Lithotripsy Outcomes for Upper and Lower Ureteral Stones in Non-obese and Non-Pre-stented Adults: Is One Session Sufficient?

Purpose This study aims to evaluate differences in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) outcomes between upper and lower ureteral stones and identify patients who are likely to have a stone-free status after one session of SWL. Materials and methods After approval from the institutional review board and from a prospectively maintained database of 628 patients, 182 were retrospectively identified, who have had SWL for a single lower or upper ureteral stone and met the inclusion criteria. Age, body mass index (BMI), and stone size were similar among the groups. This study included non-pre-stented patients with solitary lower or upper ureteral radiopaque stones identified on non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT), did not have acute obstruction, and had either normal body mass index (BMI) or overweight status. Patients were treated with Sonolith i-sys electroconductive lithotripter (focal length: 21 cm) (EDAP TMS, Vaulx-en-Velin, France). Success was defined as the absence of residual of any size or a residual of ≤2 mm on NCCT after one month, whereas failure was having fragments >2 mm or requiring surgical intervention. Post-SWL assessments were completed one week after every session with an X-ray of the kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB-XR) and NCCT after one month. Results The upper and lower ureteral stone-free rates (SFRs) were 95% and 64.7%, respectively. Of them, 65% and 45%, respectively, were stone-free after one session. The cohort having a stone-free status after one SWL session was similar in age, sex, BMI, and stone density. The upper ureteral stone arm has a significant chance for one SFR session with a larger stone size, shocks per session, and maximum power delivered. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the optimal cut point number of sessions of 1.5, mean stone density (MSD) of 895, and stone size of 10.5 mm are the most likely to have successful SWL in the ureter. Conclusion For patients having ureteral stones with favorable factors, SWL modality is effective and safe. Moreover, SWL can be done for one or two sessions only with the presence of favorable factors.

The Effect of Covid-19 on the Management of Acute Ureteric Colic in a Tertiary Hospital

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic forced changes to care pathways. We have analysed the difference in provision of care to patients presenting with ureteric colic during the pandemic (PC) compared to a pre-pandemic cohort (PPC). Method: A list was generated of all CT KUB scans requested in the emergency department. Imaging and notes were reviewed to identify acute ureteric colic presentations in September to December 2019 and 2020. Statistical significance was calculated using either the Student T-test or Chi-squared test. Results: There were 92 patients in the PC, and 107 in the PPC. Primary treatment was provided for more patients during the pandemic (25% vs 10%, p<0.05), mainly by extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWL, 21% vs 7%, p<0.05). The rate of conservative management (64% vs 76%, p>0.05), temporising stent (11% vs 14%, p>0.05), and nephrostomy insertion (1% vs 1%, p>0.05) was similar in PC and PPC. The PC had a shorter time to intervention (17 vs 39 days, p<0.05), to ESWL (4 vs 12 days, p>0.05), to ureteroscopy (35 vs 45 days, p>0.05), and to stone passage confirmation (44 vs 91 days, p<0.05) respectively. There was no follow up for 15% and 30% respectively (p<0.05). Conclusion: During the pandemic, a reduction in electives created capacity for urgent interventions, (21% vs 7% ESWL, 4 vs 12 waiting days). Accordingly, the stone passage confirmation time was more than halved (44 vs 91 days). In accordance with recommendations from NICE, TISU and GIRFT, this demonstrates the importance of ringfencing ESWL, particularly as we emerge from the pandemic.

Urological stone disease: a 5-year update of stone management using Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To reassess the trends in upper urinary tract (UUT) stone disease burden and management in the UK during the last 5 years. METHODS: The present paper is our third quinquennial analysis of trends in the management of renal stones in England. Data were collected using the Hospital Episode Statistics database for the years 2015-2020 inclusive. These were then analysed, summarized and presented. RESULTS: The number of UUT stone episodes increased by 2.2% from 86 742 in 2014-2015 to 88 632 in 2019-2020 but annual prevalence remained static at 0.14%. The number of UUT stone episodes in those of working age has remained static but increased by 9% for patients aged > 60 years (from 27 329 to 29 842). The number of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatments decreased by 6.8%. There was a further increase in the use of ureteroscopy (URS) between 2015 and 2020 of 18.9%. Within this subgroup, flexible URS had the most rapid increase in use, with a rise of 20.4% from 7108 to 8558 recorded cases. Over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 there was a remarkable 257% increase in URS cases. There was a further decline in open surgery for UUT stone disease by 40%. Stone surgery day-case numbers have increased by 14.7% (from 31 014 to 35 566), with a corresponding decline in the number of bed days of 14.3%. Emergency cases increased by 40%, while elective cases saw a slight increase of 1.9%. CONCLUSION: The present study shows a plateauing in the prevalence of UUT stone disease in England in the last 5 years, with a move towards day-case procedures and an increase in the proportion of emergency work. For the first time in England, URS has overtaken SWL as the most common procedure for treating UUT stone disease, which might reflect patients' or physicians' preference for a more effective definitive treatment.

Upskirt exposure: The effectiveness of lead skirts to protect the urologist during seated endoscopic stone surgery

Introduction & Objectives: The use of intra-operative image intensifier (II) has increased in urological practice as the mainstay of stone surgery is performed endoscopically. Here we examine the radiation exposure to the groin of the urologist performed endoscopic stone surgery. Our primary aim was to assess whether urologists are exposed to potentially avoidable radiation exposure in the seated position when using vest and skirt lead protection. We hypothesize that the level of exposure is negligible and should not influence surgeon decision on seated versus standing or on lead apron versus skirt and vest combination protective wear. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicentre study across all public hospitals in the Hunter New England Area Health Network offering Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Routinely, servicing a very large population base, the number of laser lithotripsy cases are quite high however during our research period the coronavirus pandemic diminished the number of elective cases performed. Because of this, we included a total of 50 cases in this study. Small multidimensional-reading dosimeters were worn on the medial aspect of both upper thighs of the urologist under the lead skirt as well as a third dosimeter worn on the outside of the lead protective skirt. All cases were performed with the II in an under-couch position and all cases included were either ureteroscopy or pyeloscopy with laser destruction of urinary stones. In one centre, all surgery was performed by a consultant urologist whilst in another it was all performed by a registrar. Screening time and total dose delivered were prospectively collected using the local network picture archiving and communication system (PACS). This data was analysed by an onsite physicist and collated. After calculating mean and median radiation dose exposures for each dosimeter and grouping those worn under the skirt, comparison was made between dosimeters worn under skirt versus over skirt and Results: Lead gowns reduced radiation dose exposure by 87% (p = <0.01);99% on the side opposite the II and by 76% on the same side of the II (p = 0.2). Mean total dose area product was 88.9 GyCm2 with a mean screening time of 80 seconds per case (range 12-311 seconds). Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that there is no significant exposure risk in a seated position with vest and skirt combination lead protective wear. An unexpected result was the difference in exposure between the side closest versus furthest away from the image intensifier.

Intra vascular lithotripsy facilitated Transfemoral TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now the standard of therapy for elderly population with severe aortic stenosis. Several studies have established that the outcomes of TAVR are superior when compared with Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), especially when the access route is transfemoral arterial approach. In the elderly population with advanced age and numerous comorbidities, iliofemoral arterial disease (IAD) is not uncommon and it precludes the use of this route for TAVR. Peripheral Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has been previously established as an excellent safe and efficient modality to treat symptomatic occlusive calcific iliofemoral artery disease. The same principle of IVL has been recently used successfully to modify the vascular compliance of heavily calcified iliofemoral arteries thereby enabling large bore sheath advancement and safe passage of TAVR delivery catheter systems. We report the first case of Intravascular lithotripsy facilitated Transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR) in India. This case was done in December 2020 by the “femoral route” in order to keep the TAVR procedure simple straightforward and discharge the patient back home quickly in Covid times. The use of Intravascular Lithotripsy (IVL)was based on evidence of good outcomes in trials of peripheral vascular disease of lower limbs as well as from the good outcomes of few registries on IVL facilitated TAVR.1,2,3,4,5,6,8 The second case was done in August 2021 by us for another patient successfully.

Acute extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones - 7-years' experience from a busy district general hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of acute extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteric stones we present our experience of ESWL in 530 ureteric stone cases, in the largest UK series we are aware of to date. ESWL is underutilised in ureteric stone management. The Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) report showed just four units nationally treated >10% of acute ureteric stones with ESWL. Despite guideline recommendations as a first-line treatment option, few large volume studies have been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between December 2012 and February 2020 was performed. Data relating to patient demographics, stone characteristics, skin-to-stone distance, and treatment failure were collected. Cost analysis was conducted by the Trust's surgical financial manager. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess for predictors of ESWL success. RESULTS: A success rate of 68% (95% confidence interval 64%-72%) at 6 weeks was observed (n = 530). The median (interquartile range) number of treatment sessions was 2 (1, 2). Stone diameter was observed to be a predictor of ESWL success. The small number of stones treated of >13 mm or >1250 HU had an ~50% chance of successful treatment. Acute ureteric ESWL was less costly than acute ureterorenoscopy, consistent with findings from previous NHS studies. CONCLUSION: Acute ESWL is a safe, reliable, and financially viable treatment option for a wider spectrum of patients than reflected in international guidelines based on our large, heterogenous series. In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era, with theatre access reduced and concerns over aerosol generating procedures, acute ESWL remains an attractive first-line treatment option.

High-risk PCI using Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy and iVAC2L support in a Covid-19 positive patient: a case report

At the time of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, we are encountering patients who are Covid-19 positive and have severe coronary artery disease. Patients requiring cardiac surgery are particularly challenging. A multidisciplinary discussion aimed at assessing surgery tolerability and considering the most appropriate approach is important given the higher risk of surgical mortality. We report a case of a high-risk Covid-19 positive symptomatic female patient with an acute coronary syndrome and a critical calcified stenosis of the main stem of the left coronary artery. This patient was not suitable for cardiac surgery and she underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention using a left ventricular mechanical support system and intravascular lithotripsy.

The effect of COVID-19 on the management of acute ureteric colic in a tertiary hospital

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed many care pathways. We have analysed the treatment of patients with ureteric colic during the pandemic compared to an equivalent period before it began. Methods: Patients with acute ureteric colic were identified from acute CTKUBs requested in the emergency department from 1 September to 31 December 2020 ('pandemic cohort') and compared to the same timeframe in 2019 ('pre-pandemic cohort'), supplemented by clinical notes review. Results: There were 92 patients in the pandemic cohort, and 107 in the pre-pandemic cohort. Full results are detailed in Table 4. The rates of conservative management (64% vs 76%), temporising stent insertion (11% vs 14%) and emergency nephrostomy insertion (1% vs 1%) was similar in both cohorts (p > 0.05). However, more primary treatment was provided during the pandemic (25% vs 10%) mainly as extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWL, 21% vs 7%;p < 0.05). The pandemic cohort also had a shorter time to intervention (17 vs 39 days), driven by more rapid ESWL (4 vs 12 days) and to confirmation of stone passage (44 vs 91 days) (p < 0.05 for all three parameters), whereas the time to salvage ureteroscopy for failed conservative management was equivalent (35 vs 45 days, p > 0.05). Fifteen percent of the pandemic and 30% of the prepandemic cohort were lost to follow-up (p < 0.05). Conclusion: During COVID, reduced elective activity, particularly ESWL for renal stones, created capacity for urgent intervention such that the proportion of patients who had acute ESWL tripled (21% vs 7%) and were treated in one-third of the time (4 vs 12 days). Accordingly, the time to confirmation of stone passage was more than halved during the pandemic (44 vs 91 days). In accordance with recommendations from NICE, TISU, and GIRFT, these data confirm the importance of ringfencing urgent ESWL slots as we emerge from the pandemic.

Initial experiences of starting a new regional extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) service during a global pandemic

Introduction: The 2018 GIRFT report and 2019 NICE renal and ureteric stone guidelines recommended regional, fixed-site lithotripsy units to provide elective and emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urinary tract calculus <20 mm. In our region, Trusts were serviced by a mobile lithotripter, which was unable to provide adequate emergency treatment, as such a new fixedsite regional service was developed. Methods: The ongoing pandemic resulted in many challenges in the service development, including a reduction in urological operating by 25% during the COVID-19 pandemic, with additional loss of capacity as only patients ASA 2 or below was able to be treated in peripheral centres. A new pathway was introduced aiming to reduce admissions to surgical wards, instead moving directly to treatment and pain relief at home, in line with the 2019 NHS long-term plan. After 6 weeks of treating local patients, the service was opened to Trusts across the region to enable equal access for all patients' for both emergency and elective ESWL. Results: In the first 6 months, 144 local stones were treated with ESWL (38 ureteric and 106 renal), of which 118 (81.9%) were successfully cleared, with the NICE guidelines quoting success rates between 72.4% and 83.8%. Across that period, this would have required 40 additional operating sessions (160 operative hours) to treat these stones ureteroscopically. With ureteroscopy £2347 more expensive than ESWL to get stone clearance (Constanti et al. BJUI 2020;125: 457-466), the treatment cost saving in the first 6 months is £281,666. In addition, 53 stones were treated as an emergency from the region, with a stone clearance rate of 81% and 53% treated within 48 hours. Conclusion: The new ESWL service has resulted in regional stone treatments with success rates in line with published data, in addition to providing economic and operative capacity benefits during a global pandemic.

What is the best way to manage ureteric calculi in the time of COVID-19? A comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in an Australian health-care setting.

Objectives: To determine the best way to intervene for ureteric stones which still require treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, with respect to infection control. In this setting, in which resources are constrained, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has prima facie advantages over ureteroscopy (URS). It is also necessary to also consider posttreatment resource consumption in regards to complications and repeat procedures. Subjects and methods: The ideal ureteric stone treatment during a pandemic such as COVID-19 would involve minimum resource consumption and a minimum number of patient attendances. We compared all patients initially treated with SWL to those initially treated with URS for acute ureteral colic within the state of Victoria, Australia in 2017. Results: A total of 2724 ureteric stones were analyzed, a cumulative "3-month exposure and burden on the healthcare system" was calculated for each patient by their initial procedure type. The readmission rate for URS was significantly higher than for SWL, 0.92 readmissions/patient for URS versus 0.54 readmissions/patient for SWL (P < .001). The cumulative hospital stay per patient for these two procedures was 2.35 days for SWL versus 3.21 days for URS (P < .001). The number of procedures per patient was 1.52 for SWL versus 1.89 for URS (P = .0213). Conclusions: Patients with ureteric stones treated initially by SWL have shorter length of stay with fewer overall attendances and procedures at 3 months than those treated with URS. During a pandemic such as COVID-19, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS.

TCTAP C-082 One Moment Percutaneous Treatment of Heavily Calcific Subocclusive Left Main Stenosis and Triple Coronary Artery Disease With Concomitant Severe Aortic Stenosis: Valvuloplasty for Impella Implantation and All Stenosis Treatment

Clinical Information Patient Initials or Identifier Number: CE 16/04/1941 Relevant Clinical History and Physical Exam: An 80 years of age lady without any previous disease were conducted to our emergency department due to dyspnoea lasting several hours. At arrival in our emergency department, the patient was still dyspnoeic. Her ECG demonstrated diffuse ischemic changes without certain site definite ischemia. Her chest X-ray showed thickening of the interlobular septa, peri-bronchial cuffing, thickening of the fissures, increased vascular marking, bilateral pleural effusions, cardiomegaly and aortic calcifications. [Formula presented] Relevant Test Results Prior to Catheterization: Her laboratory data revealed increase in myocardial necrosis markers as her TnI-HS was 3450 ng/ml and relatively normal values of other parameters. At echocardiography flash we found severe aortic valve calcification causing stenosis with peak gradient 48 mmHg, mean gradient 28 mmHg and diffuse segmental hypokinesis of left ventricle with global systolic function about 30%. The DAPT was started, and the patient was planned for coronary angiography within 24 hours of admission. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Relevant Catheterization Findings: Coronary angiography performed through the right radial artery shoed ostial and mid RCA stenosis, severe calcific distal left main (Medina 1.1.1.), mid LAD and mid Lcx stenosis (Fig. 3). At the time of COVID any transfer to any surgical center was extremely difficult so after discussion with the patient and the family we fixed the RCA with one in the mid segment and one ostial DES. Then after aortic valvuloplasty (Valver 20 mm) for Impella 2,5 placement in the left ventricle was done. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Interventional Management Procedural Step: Through right radial artery access, the right coronary artery was fixed with stenting. Then aortic balloon valvuloplasty (Valve 20 mm). The Impella device was advanced and after crossing the dilated aortic valve the tip was placed in the left ventricle. Sequential predilatations of LM-LAD and LM-LCx with semi-compliant, non-compliant and scoring balloons were performed. For persisting of unacceptable for stenting result we continued the preparation of LM bifurcation with predilatation using intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) with Shockwave balloon on LM-LAD and LM-CX. Then we implanted one bifurcation dedicated stent Bioss Lim on the axis LM-LCx. After predilatation of mid LAD we placed one drug eluting stent from LM to LAD proximal through the Bioss stent (short culotte stenting). The procedure was ended with drug coated balloon on LAD mid and with drug coated balloon inflation on LCx mid. Then, Impella was removed, and vascular closure was achieved with Manta closing device. In the ICCU, the patient complained of intensive pain in the left lumbar and iliac region, nausea and severe hypotension (80/40 mmHg blood pressure). Contralateral injection demonstrated common femoral artery injury with large amount of blood passage in the pelvic cavity. A self-expandable covered stent 8 x 60 mm was introduced and placed at the site of artery rupture. The control angiography evidenced complete closure of the artery wall with no blood passage. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Conclusions: In time of pandemic restrictions, decision of treatment must be done using available in-hospital facilities. The presence of aortic valve stenosis and multi-vessel disease and low ejection fraction requires contemporary preparation of aortic valve for haemodynamic support during coronary angioplasty. Vessel preparation can be achieved with new devices as intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to reduce the risk of complication. DCB are valid alternative to DES particularly in small vessels with long atherosclerotic disease. Vascular access site dramatic complications in the experienced hands and well-organized catheterization laboratory can be managed within the cath lab percutaneously.

Case report of rescue of a patient with COVID-19 and shock after holmium laser lithotripsy.

Lithotripsy is the primary form of treatment for ureteral calculus. According to clinical data, ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) is characterized by better efficacy, a lower risk of complications, and a quicker postoperative recovery, when compared with open surgery. However, elderly patients often have a variety of chronic diseases that can directly or indirectly influence intraoperative care and postoperative recovery. It is important that medical staff closely observe changes in the postoperative condition of patients and provide them with the best quality care. In order to control the progression of disease and reduce mortality rates, it is very important to promptly eliminate the cause of shock, supplement blood volume, and correct cardiovascular disorders. During the pandemic caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there has been a significant focus on management, predominantly operating rooms but also intensive care units (ICUs), to ensure that hospitals can provide prompt and effective diagnosis and treatment for every patient with COVID-19 and also prevent the spread of the virus and guarantee the safety of medical staff. During surgery on patients suspected of having COVID-19, it is important that specific personnel take control of the designated work and implement three strict levels of protection to prevent the transmission of the virus by air, droplets, and personal contact. Attention should be paid to the transfer of patients, the protection of medical staff, the management and control of negative pressure operation rooms, and postoperative treatment, thereby ensuring the safety of patients and medical staff. In this case report, we describe the nursing experience of rescuing a patient with COVID-19 who developed septic shock following flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. The causes of septic shock were subsequently examined to inform a new protective strategy for rescuing patients with COVID-19 in the operating room and ICU, and to prevent and control cross-infection with the virus during surgery.