Skip to main content
Download PDF

Risk factors and outcomes of urosepsis in patients with calculous pyonephrosis receiving surgical intervention: a single-center retrospective study

BMC Anesthesiology volume 19, Article number: 61 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Urosepsis is a catastrophic complication, which can easily develop into septic shock and lead to death if not diagnosed early and effectively treated in time. However, there is a lack of evidence on the risk factors and outcomes in calculous pyonephrosis patients. Therefore, this study was conducted to identify risk factors and outcomes of intra- and postoperative urosepsis in this particular population.

Methods

Clinical data of 287 patients with calculous pyonephrosis were collected. In the univariate and multivariate analysis, all patients were divided into urosepsis group and non-urosepsis group. The diagnosis of urosepsis was mainly on the basis of the criteria of American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). Patient characteristics and outcomes data were analyzed, and risk factors were assessed by binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

Of 287 patients, 41 (14.3%) acquired urosepsis. Univariate analysis showed that white blood cell (WBC > 10*10^9/L) before surgery (P = 0.027), surgery types (P = 0.009), hypotension during surgery (P < 0.001) and urgent surgery (P < 0.001) were associated with intra- and postoperative urosepsis for calculous pyonephrosis patients. In multivariate analysis, hypotension during surgery and urgent surgery were closely related to intra- and postoperative urosepsis. Outcome analysis suggested that patients developing urosepsis had a longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay and postoperative hospital stay and higher mortality.

Conclusions

Hypotension during surgery and urgent surgery were risk factors of intra- and postoperative urosepsis for calculous pyonephrosis patients, which may lead to a prolonged ICU stay, postoperative hospital stay and higher mortality.

Peer Review reports

Background

Sepsis and severe sepsis are life-threatening conditions encountered by clinicians, posing a huge burden on society [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Previous findings clarified that the incidence of sepsis has been increasing in recent 30 years [9], and the incidence of severe sepsis or septic shock ranged from 8.7 to 19.7%, with a high mortality rate ranging from 30.8 to 42% [2, 10,11,12]. Urosepsis refers to sepsis due to infection of the urinary tract and/or male reproductive system [13]. It has been reported that approximately 215,000 patients died of severe septic shock in the United States every year, and 9.1% of the infections originate in the genitourinary system, far below respiratory system (44.0%) and bacteria (17.3%) [4]. Thus, urosepsis is prone to be overlooked for a lower incidence and a better prognosis than pneumonia associated sepsis by inexperienced clinicians [4, 14] and then develop into septic shock and cause unexpected fatal events.

Calculous pyonephrosis is a common complication of urolithiasis and tends to progress into sepsis. It was reported that the prevalence of urolithiasis has increased in both Asian, European populations and the United States in recent decades, no matter in adult or pediatric patients [15,16,17,18]. Besides, many studies have demonstrated risk factors of developing urosepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) [19,20,21,22,23], however, there is no data on the risk factors and outcomes for the calculous pyonephrosis patients. Therefore, in the retrospective study, we aimed to investigate potential risk factors and outcomes of intra- and postoperative urosepsis in this particular population.

Methods

Study population

In this single-center retrospective study, we searched electronic medical records from our local Urology for urolithiasis patients having surgical treatment between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2018 in Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. During the period, 4541 patients were searched. The criteria of exclusion included: (1) patients without upper urinary tract stones and without calculous pyonephrosis;(2) patients combined severe systemic disease that was a constant threat to life or even worse, that is American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class IV-VI status;(3) patients underwent nephrectomy;(4) patients missing data. The definition of severe systemic disease that was a constant threat to life in our study mainly based on the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and the newly ASA-approved examples [24]. Surgical patients with calculous pyonephrosis included were identified according to surgical record and X-ray findings, ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) data. Finally, 287 patients were enrolled and divided into urosepsis group and non-urosepsis group according to whether or not developing urosepsis.

Data collection

All data were obtained from electronic records retrospectively except re-admission within 90 days. We mainly collected the following data: patient characteristics, preoperative co-morbidities, preoperative ASA classification, preoperative WBC and urine leukocyte (U-LEU), preoperative serum creatinine (Scr), stone size and types, surgery types and duration, intraoperative hemodynamics, postoperative ICU admission and ICU length of stay (LOS), total hospital LOS, postoperative hospital LOS and re-admission within 90 days. To reduce information bias, the data of re-admission within 90 days were gotten from electronic records as well as telephone follow-up. Urgent surgery in this study included urgent conditions which needed to remove obstruction, restore renal function and relieve refractory pain, such as patients complicated with high fever, low back pain, leukocytosis or decreasing of blood pressure and increasing of heart rate; acute upper urinary tract obstructive renal failure; acute renal colic (especially refractory renal colic) and so on.

Diagnosis of urosepsis

Urosepsis refers to sepsis caused by infection of the urogenital tract [13]. In this retrospective study, we complied with the criteria of ACCP/SCCM [25, 26]. Patients enrolled were divided into urosepsis group if they were clinically diagnosed as urinary tract infection and had 2 or more signs of systemic inflammation response syndrome (SIRS), which include: temperature > 38.0 °C or < 36.0 °C; heart rate > 90/min; respiration rate > 20/min or PaCO2 < 32 mmHg or less (4.3 kPa); WBC count > 12,000/mm3, < 4000/mm3, or > 10% immature bands. Intraoperative urosepsis in this study was diagnosed through combining their intraoperative hemodynamic changes and proofs of preoperative, intraoperative and early postoperative infection (within 6 h after surgery). The criteria were as follows: (1) intraoperative hemodynamic changes, like hypotension, tachycardia and fever, which could not be corrected by symptomatic treatments, such as monitoring the depth of anesthesia, blood and/or fluids transfusion, or injection of dantrolene;(2) fluid resuscitation therapy and intravenous pumping vasoactive drugs were needed to maintain intraoperative and postoperative blood pressure; (3) proofs of perioperative infection, include leukocytosis, U-LEU positive or fever before surgery, pyonephrosis was found during surgery, procalcitonin > 0.5 ng/ml [27] or blood culture positive. Given incomplete data and our study purpose, we did not differentiate between sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock, and not differentiate between intraoperative and postoperative sepsis for statistical analysis.

Definition of intraoperative hypotension

The definition of intraoperative hypotension has remained controversial. Based on several previous studies [28,29,30], we have used these thresholds in our study: a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 90 mmHg or less, or a reduction of 40 mmHg from pre-induction SBP baseline, or a mean arterial pressure (MAP) lower than 65 mmHg, or a decrease of 30% or more relative to the pre-induction MAP. When both invasive and noninvasive BP measurements were available, the invasive BP data were used.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were reported using n (%); while continuous variables using means ± SD or median (P25, P75). Continuous variables were identified as a normal distribution by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Q-Q plot. Univariate analysis was performed using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, and unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. In the multivariate analysis, all variables in the univariate analysis were considered as independent variables and a binary logistic regression model was applied (entering and removing probabilities are 0.05 and 0.10 respectively). For all analyses, variables were considered statistically significant when P < 0.05 (two-sided). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0 for Windows.

Results

Patient characteristics

During the study period, a total of 4541 patients were admitted to our Department of Urology for surgical treatment. Of these, 4227 were diagnosed as upper urinary tract stones. We excluded 3940 patients according to exclusion criteria; thus, 287 patients with calculous pyonephrosis were included in the further analysis (Fig. 1). Based on the criteria of diagnosis mentioned, 41 (14.3%) patients were identified as urosepsis (Urosepsis group, 12 as intraoperative urosepsis and 29 postoperative urosepsis), and 246 (85.7%) patients were not (Non-urosepsis group).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The flow diagram to illustrate the enrollment of study population

Full size image

Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The average age of the enrolled 287 patients (108 men and 179 women) was 53.81 ± 11.89 years. Apart from ASA classification (P = 0.002), there was no statistical significance between the two groups of other characteristics, which demonstrates that patient characteristics were almost equally distributed among patients with and without urosepsis.

Table 1 Patient characteristics of non-urosepsis and urosepsis groups
Full size table

Risk factors for intra- and postoperative urosepsis

We further determined what factors were related to an increased risk of acquiring urosepsis during and after surgery. In a univariate analysis, we analyzed potential predictors from three aspects of patient, stone and surgery. As is shown in Table 2, WBC before surgery, surgery types, hypotension during surgery and urgent surgery were associated with the occurrence of urosepsis (P < 0.05). In a multivariate analysis, only intraoperative hypotension and urgent surgery were independent predictors for patients with calculous pyonephrosis acquiring urosepsis (see Table 3). Surprisingly, factors related to the patients such as age, sex, combining with diabetes mellitus, U-LEU and Scr before surgery, as well as stone such as stone size and types, and operation time were neither in the univariate nor in the multivariate analysis significantly associated with urosepsis (P ≥ 0.05).

Table 2 Univariate analysis of variables associated with urosepsis during and after surgery
Full size table
Table 3 Multivariate analysis of variables associated with urosepsis during and after surgery
Full size table

Outcomes variables

As urosepsis is regarded as a critical perioperative complication in stone patients, we correlated its incidence with several outcome parameters. The occurrence of urosepsis was closely associated with a remarkably poor prognosis (see Table 4). Patients who developed urosepsis had a prolonged ICU length of stay and postoperative hospital LOS as well as higher mortality. In addition, there was no significant difference of total hospital LOS and re-admission within 90 days between urosepsis and non-urosepsis groups.

Table 4 Outcome characteristics of non-urosepsis and urosepsis groups
Full size table

Discussion

The main results of this retrospective study included: (1) urosepsis is a common complication for surgical patients with calculous pyonephrosis; (2) intraoperative hypotension and urgent surgery were risk factors for developing urosepsis during intra- and postoperative periods; (3) urosepsis during and after surgery prolonged ICU LOS and postoperative hospital LOS as well as increased mortality, which remarkably suggested a worse prognosis. Although there are quite a few studies to explore risk factors of urosepsis for patients with stones after PCNL or ureteroscopy (URS) [19,20,21,22,23, 31,32,33], to our knowledge, this is the first clinical retrospective study in the population of surgical patients with calculous pyonephrosis.

Besides, we did obtain some different results from previous research. Urosepsis is mainly caused by obstructive lesions of upper urinary tract, of which urolithiasis is the most common cause. A prior study reported that the incidence of urosepsis and septic shock after PCNL was 0.3–2.5% [21], however, little is known about patients with calculous pyonephrosis. While in the single institution study, we got an apparent higher rate of 14.3% of developing urosepsis in this particular population. The characteristic may be the reason that patients with calculous pyonephrosis are often more serious in the renal infection than most patients with urolithiasis undergoing PCNL.

One of the main objectives of this study was to investigate risk factors of urosepsis in calculous pyonephrosis patients with particular emphasis to variables describing patient, stone and surgery, however, contrary to what we expected, most of patient characteristics as well as stone features were not associated with urosepsis during and after surgery. This result was unexpected due to what some persuading evidence reported [13, 23, 34]. Wagenlehner and colleagues [13] believed that urosepsis tends to occur in elderly patients with a history of diabetes mellitus and immunosuppressed patients, such as those receiving organ transplants or chemotherapy or corticosteroids treatment, and those with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. In addition, it was reported that women was an independent risk factor for urosepsis after PCNL [23, 34], and the incidence of bacteriuria, urinary tract infections and sepsis in women after PCNL was 2 times higher than that of men [35]. While in this study, we found that neither elderly patients nor women did increase the risk of postoperative urosepsis in patients with calculus pyonephrosis. With respect to the stone features increasing risk of urosepsis, previous literatures have shown that infectious stones, stones with a diameter more than 2.5 cm or a surface area greater than 10 cm2, stones in the renal pelvis or with obstructive lesion were potential predictors for postoperative urosepsis [22, 23, 36, 37]. However, in our study, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that stone size and types were not independent risk factors for postoperative urosepsis. We believe those are because the study population was different from prior evidence. We mainly focused on calculous pyonephrosis patients while most of the previous ones concentrated on stone patients undergoing PCNL or URS. Furthermore, given that the sample size might have been too small to identify a correlation between those variables and risk for urosepsis occurrence, our results should be interpreted with caution. Hence, larger studies including more patients are needed for further investigation.

In addition, through multivariate analysis, we found that for patients with calculus pyonephrosis, intraoperative hypotension and urgent surgery may increase the risk of urosepsis, which were not surprising. Intraoperative hypotension was one of criteria we identified intraoperative urosepsis, which means that it is very likely to be associated with the occurrence of urosepsis. Taken into account insufficient preparation before surgery and uncertainty during urgent surgery, that urgent surgery increased risk for urosepsis seem to be reasonable. More importantly, in our study, we found many patients undergoing urgent surgery had obstructive lesions, which per se is the cause of urosepsis. Therefore, for those who do need urgent surgery, especially those who need to relieve obstruction, the severity and complexity should be fully realized and urologists should make the optimal judgment during surgery.

As for outcomes characteristics of urosepsis group and non-urosepsis group, as we expected, patients with calculous pyonephrosis who acquired urosepsis had a longer ICU LOS and postoperative hospital LOS and higher mortality than those did not acquire urosepsis. By further analysis, we found an interesting phenomenon that a large proportion of patients with urosepsis underwent urgent surgery, rather than elective surgery, resulting in shorter preoperative preparation time, which might be a possible explanation of the total hospital LOS with no significant difference but a longer postoperative hospital LOS.

Some limitations of our research have to be noted. As we mentioned, one major limitation is deriving from the small sample size, which may contribute to some false negative results inconsistent with previous data. The single-center retrospective design is another important weakness, making it difficult to interpret more internationally and avoid bias completely. Besides, the retrospective design and the new definition of intraoperative urosepsis may lead to an inaccurate estimation of urosepsis occurrence. Moreover, limited to the study design and missing data, we did not analyze more risk factors such as preoperative midstream urine culture and some biomarkers like C-reactive protein, procalcitonin and intraoperative perfusion pressure, which previous studies have shown a correlation with the risk of sepsis [19, 27, 38,39,40,41,42]. Combining these weak points, our analyses should be interpreted prudently and further multi-center randomized controlled studies including a larger case number are needed.

Despite these limitations, we still hope to emphasize the high incidence and adverse effect of urosepsis on calculous pyonephrosis patients and come up with some suggestions. One proposal is to fully prepare before urgent surgery. Another important step is that urologists should be better realize the severity and complexity of urosepsis and minimize operation time as possible, sometimes a staged procedure is recommended [18]. Furthermore, if necessary, it is advisable for anesthesiologist to focus more on vital signs of patient and remind the chief surgeon to transfer the patient to the ICU earlier according to the patient’s intraoperative conditions because 90% septic complications occur in the early postoperative phase [43]. Given that patient safety has not yet improved evidently for specialties including surgery, ICU and anesthesiology recently [44], multidisciplinary collaboration between anesthesiologists, urologists and ICU physicians might be beneficial for improving outcome.

Conclusions

We found a high incidence of intra- and postoperative urosepsis in surgical patients with calculous pyonephrosis. Intraoperative hypotension and urgent surgery were independent variables associated with urosepsis during and after surgery, which may pose a heavier burden on patients due to a prolonged ICU LOS and postoperative hospital LOS. Larger prospective studies are needed to further investigate the risk factors and prognosis of urosepsis for this patient population.

Abbreviations

ACCP:

American College of Chest Physicians

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

ICU:

Intensive care unit

LOS:

Length of stay

MAP:

Mean arterial pressure

PCNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

SBP:

Systolic blood pressure

SCCM:

Society of Critical Care Medicine

Scr:

Serum creatinine

SIRS:

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome

U-LEU:

Urine leukocyte

URS:

Ureteroscopy

WBC:

White blood cell

References

  1. Stoller J, Halpin L, Weis M, Aplin B, Qu W, Georgescu C, Nazzal M. Epidemiology of severe sepsis: 2008-2012. J Crit Care. 2016;31(1):58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng B, Xie G, Yao S, Wu X, Guo Q, Gu M, Fang Q, Xu Q, Wang D, Jin Y, et al. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in critically ill surgical patients in ten university hospitals in China. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(11):2538–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R. The direct costs of intensive care management and risk factors for financial burden of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. J Crit Care. 2015;30(5):929–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Feng Q, Ai YH, Gong H, Wu L, Ai ML, Deng SY, Huang L, Peng QY, Zhang LN. Characterization of Sepsis and Sepsis-associated encephalopathy. J Intensive Care Med. 2017;1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066617719750.

  6. Zhou J, Qian C, Zhao M, Yu X, Kang Y, Ma X, Ai Y, Xu Y, Liu D, An Y, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in intensive care units in mainland China. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zheng J, Xiang X, Xiao B, Li H, Gong X, Yao S, Yuan T. Xuebijing combined with ulinastation benefits patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(3):480–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang LN, Wang XT, Ai YH, Guo QL, Huang L, Liu ZY, Yao B. Epidemiological features and risk factors of sepsis-associated encephalopathy in intensive care unit patients: 2008-2011. Chin Med J. 2012;125(5):828–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, Moss M. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(16):1546–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kumar G, Kumar N, Taneja A, Kaleekal T, Tarima S, McGinley E, Jimenez E, Mohan A, Khan RA, Whittle J, et al. Nationwide trends of severe sepsis in the 21st century (2000-2007). Chest. 2011;140(5):1223–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shen HN, Lu CL, Yang HH. Epidemiologic trend of severe sepsis in Taiwan from 1997 through 2006. Chest. 2010;138(2):298–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Suzuki S, Pilcher D, Bellomo R. Mortality related to severe sepsis and septic shock among critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000-2012. Jama. 2014;311(13):1308–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wagenlehner FM, Pilatz A, Naber KG, Weidner W. Therapeutic challenges of urosepsis. Eur J Clin Investig. 2008;38(Suppl 2):45–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagenlehner FM, Weidner W, Naber KG. Optimal management of urosepsis from the urological perspective. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;30(5):390–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994. Kidney Int. 2003;63(5):1817–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Curhan GC. Epidemiology of stone disease. The Urologic clinics of North America. 2007;34(3):287–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Park J, Suh B, Lee MS, Woo SH, Shin DW. National Practice Pattern and time trends in treatment of upper urinary tract calculi in Korea: a Nationwide population-based study. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(12):1989–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fan BY, Gu L, Chand H, Liu WJ, Yuan JB. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for pediatric complex renal calculus disease: one-stage or two-stage? Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51(2):201-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mariappan P, Smith G, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, Tolley DA. Stone and pelvic urine culture and sensitivity are better than bladder urine as predictors of urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective clinical study. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1610–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mariappan P, Smith G, Moussa SA, Tolley DA. One week of ciprofloxacin before percutaneous nephrolithotomy significantly reduces upper tract infection and urosepsis: a prospective controlled study. BJU Int. 2006;98(5):1075–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bag S, Kumar S, Taneja N, Sharma V, Mandal AK, Singh SK. One week of nitrofurantoin before percutaneous nephrolithotomy significantly reduces upper tract infection and urosepsis: a prospective controlled study. Urology. 2011;77(1):45–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Korets R, Graversen JA, Kates M, Mues AC, Gupta M. Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy systemic inflammatory response: a prospective analysis of preoperative urine, renal pelvic urine and stone cultures. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1899–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kumar S, Bag S, Ganesamoni R, Mandal AK, Taneja N, Singh SK. Risk factors for urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of 1 week of nitrofurantoin in reducing the risk of urosepsis. Urol Res. 2012;40(1):79–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hurwitz EE, Simon M, Vinta SR, Zehm CF, Shabot SM, Minhajuddin A, Abouleish AE. Adding examples to the ASA-physical status classification improves correct assignment to patients. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(4):614–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, Schein RMH, Sibbald WJ. Definitions for Sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in Sepsis. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bone RCSC, Sibbald WJ. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure. Crit Care Med. 1992;20(6):724–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wacker C, Prkno A, Brunkhorst FM, Schlattmann P. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(5):426–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, Schein RM, Sibbald WJ. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM consensus conference committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, et al. The third international consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). Jama. 2016;315(8):801–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. van Waes JA, van Klei WA, Wijeysundera DN, van Wolfswinkel L, Lindsay TF, Beattie WS. Association between intraoperative hypotension and myocardial injury after vascular surgery. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(1):35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shoshany O, Margel D, Finz C, Ben-Yehuda O, Livne PM, Holand R, Lifshitz D. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for infection stones: what is the risk for postoperative sepsis? A retrospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(3):237–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Blackmur JP, Maitra NU, Marri RR, Housami F, Malki M, McIlhenny C. Analysis of Factors' Association with risk of postoperative Urosepsis in patients undergoing Ureteroscopy for treatment of stone disease. J Endourol. 2016;30(9):963–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen J, Zhou X, Chen Z, Liu L, Jiang L, Chen C, Qi L, Zu X, Chen H. Multiple tracts percutaneous nephrolithotomy assisted by LithoClast master in one session for staghorn calculi: report of 117 cases. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):165–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu C, Zhang X, Liu Y, Wang P. Prevention and treatment of septic shock following mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center retrospective study of 834 cases. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1593–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Singh I, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Aron M, Dogra PN, Seth A. Efficacy and outcome of surgical intervention in patients with nephrolithiasis and chronic renal failure. Int Urol Nephrol. 2001;33(2):293–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. McAleer IM, Kaplan GW, Bradley JS, Carroll SF, Griffith DP. Endotoxin content in renal calculi. J Urol. 2003;169(5):1813–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Draga RO, Kok ET, Sorel MR, Bosch RJ, Lock TM. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: factors associated with fever after the first postoperative day and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. J Endourol. 2009;23(6):921–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zheng J, Li Q, Fu W, Ren J, Song S, Deng G, Yao J, Wang Y, Li W, Yan J. Procalcitonin as an early diagnostic and monitoring tool in urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(1):41–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sugimoto K, Adomi S, Koike H, Esa A. Procalcitonin as an indicator of urosepsis. Research and reports in urology. 2013;5:77–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim D, Lee SH, Tchah H, Ryoo E, Cho HK, Kim YM. Association between elevated alanine aminotransferase and Urosepsis in children with acute pyelonephritis. Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition. 2016;19(1):54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lang Y, Jiang Y, Gao M, Wang W, Wang N, Wang K, Zhang H, Chen G, Liu K, Liu M, et al. Interleukin-1 receptor 2: a new biomarker for Sepsis diagnosis and gram-negative/gram-positive bacterial differentiation. Shock (Augusta, Ga). 2017;47(1):119–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Xiao Y, Luo H, Zhou B, Dai X, Huang J, Duan L, You Y, Zhang W, Zhao H, Xie Y, et al. Comparison of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein in distinguishing concurrent bacterial infection from idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. Rheumatol Int. 2017;37(4):585–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cindolo L, Castellan P, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Celia A, Paccaduscio A, Schips L, Proietti S, Breda A, Giusti G. Mortality and flexible ureteroscopy: analysis of six cases. World J Urol. 2016;34(3):305–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Staender SE, Mahajan RP. Anesthesia and patient safety: have we reached our limits? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(3):349–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Yuyan Gao (School of Public Health, Central South University) for her helpful advice on statistical analysis.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81771206 and 81471135 to Dr. Zou) and the Natural Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholar of Hunan Province (2017JJ1036). The funding body played the roles in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Given patient privacy, the datasets used and analyzed are not publicly available, but they are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China

    Xia Liang, Jiangju Huang, Manyu Xing, Liqiong He, Xiaoyan Zhu, Yingqi Weng, Qulian Guo & Wangyuan Zou

Authors
  1. Xia Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiangju Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manyu Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liqiong He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoyan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yingqi Weng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Qulian Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wangyuan Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XL: Data collection and data analysis, wrote first draft of the paper, and revised the paper. JH, MX, LH, XZ, YW: data collection and data analysis. QG: revised the paper. WZ: study design, data analysis and revised the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wangyuan Zou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University. The informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of this study and the lack of medical intervention. All experimental procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, X., Huang, J., Xing, M. et al. Risk factors and outcomes of urosepsis in patients with calculous pyonephrosis receiving surgical intervention: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Anesthesiol 19, 61 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0729-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0729-3

Keywords

  • Calculous pyonephrosis
  • Sepsis
  • Upper urinary calculi
  • Urosepsis

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us