Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 29, 2025
Noninvasive and Invasive Renal Hypoxia Monitoring in a Porcine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock
Published on: October 28, 2022
Choosing the best way for urinary decompression and developing a novel predictive model for septic shock using SOFA
Yu Xi Terence Law1, Liang Shen2, Vincent Wei Sheng Khor3,4
1Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Objectives:
To identify predictive factors for the development of sepsis/septic shock postdecompression of calculi-related ureteric obstruction using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and to compare clinical outcomes and odd risk ratios of patients developing sepsis/septic shock following the insertion of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) versus insertion of retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS).
Methods:
Clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent PCN and/or RUS in two institutions for calculi-related ureteric obstruction were retrospectively collected from January 2014 to December 2020.
Results:
537 patients (244 patients in PCN group, 293 patients in RUS group) from both institutions were eligible for analysis based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients with PCN were generally older, had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and larger obstructive ureteral calculi compared to patients with RUS. Patients with PCN had longer durations of fever, the persistence of elevated total white cell and creatinine, and longer hospitalization stays compared with patients who had undergone RUS. RUS up-front has more unsuccessful interventions compared with PCN. There were no significant differences in the change in SOFA score postintervention between the two interventions. In multivariate analysis, the higher temperature just prior to the intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.039, p = 0.003) and Cardiovascular SOFA score of 1 (adjusted OR:4.037, p = 0.012) were significant independent prognostic factors for the development of septic shock postdecompression of ureteral obstruction.
Conclusions:
Our study reveals that both interventions have similar overall risk of urosepsis, septic shock and mortality rate. Despite a marginally higher risk of failure, RUS should be considered in patients with lower procedural risk. Patients going for PCN should be counseled for a longer stay. Post-HDU/-ICU monitoring, inotrope support postdecompression should be considered for patients with elevated temperature within 1 h preintervention and cardiovascular SOFA score of 1.
