Shock wave lithotripsy, for the treatment of kidney stones, results in changes to routine blood tests and novel biomarkers: a prospective clinical pilot-study

Abstract

Abstract Background The number of patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for kidney stones is increasing annually, and as such the development of post-operative complications, such as haematuria and acute kidney injury (AKI) following SWL, is likely to increase. The aim of the study was to evaluate changes in routine blood and novel biomarkers following SWL, for the treatment of kidney stones. Methods Twelve patients undergoing SWL for solitary unilateral kidney stones were recruited. From patients (8 males and 4 females) aged between 31 and 72 years (median 43 years), venous blood samples were collected pre-operatively (baseline), at 30, 120 and 240 min post-operatively. Routine blood tests were performed using a Sysmex XE-5000, and Beckman Coulter AU5800 and AU680 analysers. NGAL, IL-18, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-10 and IL-8 concentrations were determined using commercially available ELISA kits. Results Significant (p ≤ 0.05) changes were observed in several blood parameters following SWL. NGAL concentration significantly increased, with values peaking at 30 min post-treatment (p = 0.033). Although IL-18 concentration increased, these changes were not significant (p = 0.116). IL-6 revealed a statistically significant rise from pre-operative up to 4 h post-operatively (p < 0.001), whilst TNF-α significantly increased, peaking at 30 min post-SWL (p = 0.05). There were no significant changes to IL-10 and IL-8 concentrations post-SWL (p > 0.05). Conclusions Changes to routine blood tests and specific biomarkers, in the future, may be more useful for clinicians. In turn, identification of a panel of biomarkers could provide valuable data on “normal” physiological response after lithotripsy. Ultimately, studies could be expanded to identify or predict those patients at increased risk of developing post-operative complications, such as acute kidney injury or. These studies, however, need validating involving larger cohorts.