Avaliação do pH na amostra isolada e na urina de 24h de pacientes litiásicos em uso de citrato de potássio

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Silva, Isabela Bertanholi Leme da [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
• Palavras-chave em Português: Urina - Analise; Aparelho urinário - Cálculos; Infecções urinarias; Rins - Calculos
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/123849; http://www.athena.biblioteca.unesp.br/exlibris/bd/cathedra/11-06-2015/000830960.pdf

INTRODUCTION: Urinary lithiasis (UL) is a highly prevalent condition in clinical practice, and has been known for centuries. In most patients, recurrent calculi composition is similar to the original ones, suggesting that it may be a multifactorial process, also influenced by urine characteristics. Thus, urinary pH variation may have an important role in calculus composition. Classically, 24-h urine collection (U24-h) is considered one of the most useful tools in investigation and treatment of urinary lithiasis etiology. However, this test is cumbersome to perform. Recent research suggests that a fasting urine pH may be as representative as U24-h. Therefore, further studies are necessary to determine the ideal methodology for evaluating and monitoring the urinary pH in patients with nephrolithiasis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 114 patients with nephrolithiasis that are in use of citrate potassium were prospectively evaluated. All patients collected 24-h urine (U24h); and an aditional fasting sample was obtained (Uf) when delivering the first one at the lab. Two different methods (pH test paper and digital pHmeter) were used for the urinary pH determination. RESULTS: Among the 114 individuals evaluated, 44 (39%) were male and 70 (61%) female; mean age was 51.11 ± 12.93 years old and average body mass index (BMI) was 28.71 ± 4.56 kg / m2. Mean U24-h pH for test paper was 6.07 ± 0.74 and 6.02 ± 0.82 for Uf. Likewise, considering the digital pHmeter methodology, mean pH was 5.8 ± 0.78 and 5.75 ± 0.83, for U24-h and Uf, respectively. There was a good statistical correlation between urinary pH values obtained from pH test paper and pHmeter, for both types of urine sample (U24-h and Uf). CONCLUSION: The pH measurement in fasting urine sample was as effective as the standard method (U24-h) in the evaluation of patients with nephrolithiasis using potassium citrate