You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Shock Wave Lithotripsy1 Apr 2016MP54-05 EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND THE RISK OF DIABETES MELLITUS: A POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY Michael Ordon, Blayne Welk, Jason Lee, R. D'A John Honey, and Kenneth Pace Michael OrdonMichael Ordon More articles by this author , Blayne WelkBlayne Welk More articles by this author , Jason LeeJason Lee More articles by this author , R. D'A John HoneyR. D'A John Honey More articles by this author , and Kenneth PaceKenneth Pace More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.575AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Our objective was to perform a population-based retrospective cohort study to determine if patients treated with shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) are at a greater risk for the development of diabetes mellitus (DM) than those treated with ureteroscopy (URS) METHODS All SWL and URS treatments performed in the province of Ontario between January 1994 and December 2012 were identified using linked administrative healthcare databases. The primary outcome was the development of DM > 90 days following treatment. SWL, the study exposure, was utilized as a time-dependent exposure to account for those who underwent SWL following URS. Unadjusted analysis with the Kaplan Meier method was used to examine the time to development of DM across the SWL and URS groups. Multivariable analysis with Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to assess the risk for DM between SWL and URS groups while controlling for age, gender, region of residence, income quintile and comorbidity index. A sensitivity analysis was performed adjusting the time frame window for development of DM to a minimum of >180 and 365 days following treatment, respectively. RESULTS We identified 99,144 patients who underwent SWL or URS over the study period with a median follow-up of 6.6 years (SWL 8.5 years, URS 5.6 years). The groups had similar baseline characteristics (Table 1). Unadjusted survival analysis demonstrated an increased risk for the development of DM in the SWL group compared to the URS group (p<0.0008) (Figure 1). Similarly, multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased risk of DM in the SWL cohort (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12; p<0.0001). Sensitivity analysis revealed comparable results with an increased risk of DM in the SWL cohort both with the time for exclusion increased to 180 days (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12; p<0.0001) and 365 days (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Our population-based cohort study demonstrated a small, but significant increased risk of DM in patients undergoing SWL compared to URS. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e728 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Michael Ordon More articles by this author Blayne Welk More articles by this author Jason Lee More articles by this author R. D'A John Honey More articles by this author Kenneth Pace More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract