Comparing silodosin and mirabegron as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculus: a prospective, randomised study.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-25 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2023.182
Mohammad Shazib Faridi, Sanika Deshpande
{"title":"Comparing silodosin and mirabegron as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculus: a prospective, randomised study.","authors":"Mohammad Shazib Faridi, Sanika Deshpande","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of mirabegron and silodosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculus ≤10 mm.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria were prospectively randomised into 2 groups, 58 patients in the silodosin group and 56 patients in the mirabegron group. The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time and number of pain episodes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, mean stone size, side, or hydronephrosis. Both groups exhibited similar rates of stone expulsion and expulsion time. Regarding pain management, the frequency of renal colic episodes was significantly lower with mirabegron compared to silodosin (2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2, P <0.0001). Six patients were excluded from the study due to adverse drug reactions: 4 (6.15%) in the silodosin group (retrograde ejaculation, hypotension) and 2 (3.27%) in the mirabegron group (hypertension).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In among patients with distal ureteric stones measuring 5-10 mm, mirabegron did not demonstrate superiority in stone expulsion rate or expulsion time compared to silodosin. However, mirabegron significantly reduced the frequency of renal colic episodes. Therefore, mirabegron may be considered a preferable option for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones over silodosin.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"286-290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of mirabegron and silodosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculus ≤10 mm.

Material and methods: A total of 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria were prospectively randomised into 2 groups, 58 patients in the silodosin group and 56 patients in the mirabegron group. The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time and number of pain episodes.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, mean stone size, side, or hydronephrosis. Both groups exhibited similar rates of stone expulsion and expulsion time. Regarding pain management, the frequency of renal colic episodes was significantly lower with mirabegron compared to silodosin (2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2, P <0.0001). Six patients were excluded from the study due to adverse drug reactions: 4 (6.15%) in the silodosin group (retrograde ejaculation, hypotension) and 2 (3.27%) in the mirabegron group (hypertension).

Conclusions: In among patients with distal ureteric stones measuring 5-10 mm, mirabegron did not demonstrate superiority in stone expulsion rate or expulsion time compared to silodosin. However, mirabegron significantly reduced the frequency of renal colic episodes. Therefore, mirabegron may be considered a preferable option for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones over silodosin.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较西洛多辛和米拉贝琼作为远端输尿管结石的药物排石疗法:一项前瞻性随机研究。
简介本研究旨在比较米拉贝琼和西洛多辛作为药物排石疗法(MET)治疗输尿管远端结石(≤10 mm)的疗效:符合纳入标准的 114 名患者被随机分为两组,西洛多辛组 58 人,米贝格隆组 56 人。用药时间最长为 4 周。主要终点是结石排出率,次要终点是结石排出时间和疼痛发作次数:两组患者在平均年龄、性别、平均结石大小、侧卧位或肾积水方面均无统计学差异。两组的结石排出率和排出时间相似。在疼痛治疗方面,米雷贝琼的肾绞痛发作频率明显低于西洛多辛(2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2,P 结论:米雷贝琼的肾绞痛发作频率明显低于西洛多辛(2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2,P):在患有 5-10 毫米输尿管远端结石的患者中,与西洛多辛相比,米拉贝格隆在结石排出率和排出时间方面没有优势。然而,米拉贝琼却大大降低了肾绞痛发作的频率。因此,与西洛多辛相比,米拉贝琼可被视为输尿管远端结石药物排石疗法的首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Transperitoneal single-port robotic Firefly-guided bladder diverticulectomy and simple prostatectomy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy challenges in managing spinal cord neuropathy patients. Lessons learned from a scoping review. Robotic left nephrectomy with level IV inferior vena cava thrombectomy using the AngioVac system. Detrusor underactivity in symptomatic anterior pelvic organ prolapse. The role of gel-infused translabial ultrasound as a new modality in evaluation of female urethral stricture.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1