Efficacy and safety of intermittent catheterization for acute urinary retention: a prospective comparative randomized study

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objectives of the study: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intermittent catheterization in the management of acute urinary retention and to identify factors influencing the resume normal voiding and the development of adverse events. Materials and methods. 129 patients admitted to urology department with acute urinary retention due to BPH were randomized into two groups. Group I had indwelling bladder catheterisation using Foly catheter. Group II was catheterized intermittently. Main outcome measures: Success rate, time to resume normal voiding, number of episodes of fever, pain, urgency and gross hematuria. Factors influencing the probability of AUR resolution and adverse events were also analyzed. Results. Normal voiding was resumed in 25 (35.7%) patients in group I, and in 26 (44%) patients in group II. The probability ofAUR resolution in group II was 1.5 times higher than in group I. However, this difference was not statistically significant. In group II normal voiding was restored within 1 day in 1 (3.8%) patient, in 12 (46.2%) - within 2 days, and in 13 (50%) - within 3 days. On the 7th day relapse of AUR occurred in 3 (2.3%) patients, in 2 (2,8%) patients in group I and in 1 (1.7%) patient in group II. Logistic regression analysis showed statistically significant association between the probability of developing gross hematuria and the age of the patient, as well as between possible urethrorrhagia and episodes of acute urinary retention previous to the last AUR episode. Statistically significant associations were revealed between age and the use of a-blockers at the time of the acute urinary retention episode and the probability AUR resolution. An increase in the patient’s age by 1 year was associated with decrease in the chances of voiding resumption by 1.07 times, and a-blockers therapy at the time of acute urinary retention increased these chances by 2.8 times. Urgency rate was statistically significantly higher in group I (30% vs. 3.4%), the chances of developing urgency were also 12 times higher in group I. Conclusion. Intermittent catheterization is an effective method of AUR management. The major advantages of this method are the possibility of outpatient treatment, maximum preservation of patient’s social and sexual activity, earlier resumption of voiding and significantly less common catheter-associated lower urinary tract symptoms.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

V. A Malkhasyan

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of Minzdrav of Russia; Municipal clinical hospital named after S.I. Spasokukotskiy of the Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: vigenmalkhasyan@gmail.com
MD, professor at the Urological Department; Head of Urology Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

S. V Kotov

Municipal clinical hospital № 1 named after N.I. Pirogov of the Moscow Healthcare Department; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: urokotov@mail.ru
MD, professor, Head of Urological and Andrological Department; Head of University clinic of Urology Moscow, Russia

I. E Mamaev

Municipal clinical hospital named after V.M. Buyanov of the Moscow Healthcare Department; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: dr.mamaev@mail.ru
PhD, associate professor at the Urological and Andrological Department; Head of University clinic of Urology Moscow, Russia

S. V Belomytcev

Municipal clinical hospital named after V.V. Vinogradov of the Moscow Healthcare Department; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: belomytcev@yandex.ru
PhD, associate professor at the Urological and Andrological Department; Head of University clinic of Urology Moscow, Russia

R. A Perov

Municipal clinical hospital named after S.S. Yudin of the Moscow Healthcare Department; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: dr.perov@rambler.ru
PhD, associate professor at the Urological and Andrological Department; Head of University clinic of Urology Moscow, Russia

S. A Pulbere

Municipal clinical hospital № 1 named after N.I. Pirogov of the Moscow Healthcare Department; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: pulpiv@mail.ru
MD, professor at the Urological and Andrological Department; Head of Urology Department Moscow, Russia

A. I Volnukhin

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of Minzdrav of Russia; Municipal clinical hospital named after S.I. Spasokukotskiy of the Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: alex-volnuhin@rambler.ru
student at the Urological Department; urologist Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

D. U Pushkar

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of Minzdrav of Russia; Municipal clinical hospital named after S.I. Spasokukotskiy of the Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: pushkardm@mail.ru
MD, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor, Head of Urological Department; Head of Urology clinic Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Roehrborn C.G. The epidemiology of acute urinary retention in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Rev Urol. 2001l;3(4):187-192.
  2. Jacobsen S.J., Jacobson D.J., Girman C.J., Roberts R.O., Rhodes T., Guess H.A., Lieber M.M. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol. 1997; 158(2):481-487. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64508-7.
  3. Birkhoff J.D., Wiederhorn A.R., Hamilton M.L., Zinsser H.H. Natural history of benign prostatic hypertrophy and acute urinary retention. Urology. 1976 Jan;7(1):48-52. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(76)90560-4. PMID: 54971.
  4. Barry M.J., Fowler F.J.Jr, Bin L., Pitts J.C. 3rd, Harris C.J., Mulley A.G. Jr. The natural history of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia as diagnosed by North American urologists. J Urol. 1997 Jan;157(1):10-14; discussion 14-15.
  5. Meigs J.B., Barry M.J., Giovannucci E., Rimm E.B., Stampfer M.J., Kawachi I. Incidence rates and risk factors for acute urinary retention: the health professionals follow up study. J Urol. 1999 Aug;162(2):376-382.
  6. Пушкарь Д.Ю., Малхасян В.А., Ходырева Л.А., Раснер П.И., Куприянов Ю.А., Дударева А.А. и др. Анализ и оптимизация медицинской помощи пациентам с острой задержкой мочеиспускания, поступающим в стационары г. Москвы. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2016;2:4-7.
  7. Yoon P.D., Chalasani V., Woo H.H. Systematic review and meta-analysis on management of acute urinary retention. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015 Dec;18(4):297-302. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2015.15.
  8. Desgrandchamps F., De La Taille A., Doublet J.D. RetenFrance Study Group. The management of acute urinary retention in France: a crosssectional survey in 2618 men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2006 Apr;97(4):727-733. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06109.x.
  9. Park K., Kim S.H., Ahn S.G., Lee S.J., Ha U.S., Koh J.S. et al. Analysis of the treatment of two types of acute urinary retention. Korean J Urol 2012;53:843-847.
  10. Djavan B., Shariat S., Omar M., Roehrborn C/, Marberger M. Does prolonged catheter drainage improve the chance of recovering voluntary voiding after acute urinary retention (AUR). Eur Urol 1998;33:110.
  11. Taube M., Gajraj H. Trial without catheter following acute retention of urine. Br J Urol 1989;63:180-182.
  12. Fitzpatrick J.M., Desgrandchamps F., Adjali K., Gomez Guerra L., Hong S.J., El Khalid S., Ratana-Olarn K/ Reten-World Study Group. Management of acute urinary retention: a worldwide survey of 6074 men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2012 Jan;109(1):88-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10430.x. Epub 2011 Nov 25.
  13. Bhomi K.K., Bhattachan C.L. Factors predicting the success of a trial without catheter in acute urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Nepal Med Coll J. 2011 Sep;13(3):178-181.
  14. Ko Y.H., Kim J.W., Kang S.G., Jang H.A., Kang S.H., Park H.S. et al. The efficacy of in-andout catheterization as a way of trial without catheterization strategy for treatment of acute urinary retention induced by benign prostate hyperplasia: variables predicting success outcome. Neurourol Urodyn 2012;31:460-464.
  15. Patel M.I., Watts W., Grant A. The optimal form of urinary drainage after acute retention of urine. BJU Int; 2001;88:26-29.
  16. Hälleberg Nyman M., Gustafsson M., Langius-Eklöf A., Johansson J.E., Norlin R., Hagberg L.Intermittent versus indwelling urinary catheterisation in hip surgery patients: a randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Dec;50(12):1589-1598. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.05.007. Epub 2013 Jun 12.
  17. Skelly J.M., Guyatt G.H., Kalbfleisch R., Singer J., Winter L. Management of urinary retention after surgical repair of hip fracture. CMAJ. 1992 Apr 1;146(7):1185-1189.
  18. Alam M.S., Gupta S.D., Ahmed H.Z.U., Alam M.S., Wasimuddin S.M.Comparative Study Between Clean Intermittent Self-Catheterization (Cisc) and Continuous Indwelling Catheterization (Cidc) in Relieving Acute Refractory Retention of Urine Due to Benign Enlargement of Prostate (Bep). Bangladesh Journal of Urology. 2020;21(2): 05-110. doi: 10.3329/bju.v21i2.49882.
  19. Jenjitranant P., Attawettayanon W., Sirisreetreerux P., Sangkum P., Viseshsindh W. Indwelling Urinary Catheterization versus Clean Intermittent Catheterization for the Short-Term Management of Hospitalized Patients with Transient Acute Urinary Retention: A Prospective Randomized Trial. J Med Assoc Thai 2017;100:66.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies