PURPOSE: We determined and compared urethral pressure measurements using air charged and microtip catheters in a prospective, single-blind, randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 64 women referred for urodynamic investigation underwentsequential urethral pressure measurements using an air charged and a microtip catheter in randomized order. Patients were blinded to the type and sequence of catheter used. Agreement between the 2 catheter systems was assessed using the Bland and Altman 95% limits of agreement method. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients of air charged and microtip catheters for maximum urethral closure pressure at rest were 0.97 and 0.93, and for functional profile length they were 0.9 and 0.78, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficients and Lin's concordance coefficients of air charged and microtip catheters were r = 0.82 and rho = 0.79 for maximum urethral closure pressure at rest, and r = 0.73 and rho = 0.7 for functional profile length, respectively. When applying the Bland and Altman method, air charged catheters gave higher readings than microtip catheters for maximum urethral closure pressure at rest (mean difference 7.5 cm H(2)O) and functional profile length (mean difference 1.8 mm). There were wide 95% limits of agreement for differences in maximum urethral closure pressure at rest (-24.1 to 39 cm H(2)O) and functional profile length (-7.7 to 11.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS: For urethral pressure measurement the air charged catheter is at least as reliable as the microtip catheter and it generally gives higher readings. However, air charged and microtip catheters cannot be used interchangeably for clinical purposes because of insufficient agreement. Hence, clinicians should be aware that air charged and microtip catheters may yield completely different results, and these differences should be acknowledged during clinical decision making.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We determined and compared urethral pressure measurements using air charged and microtip catheters in a prospective, single-blind, randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 64 women referred for urodynamic investigation underwent sequential urethral pressure measurements using an air charged and a microtip catheter in randomized order. Patients were blinded to the type and sequence of catheter used. Agreement between the 2 catheter systems was assessed using the Bland and Altman 95% limits of agreement method. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients of air charged and microtip catheters for maximum urethral closure pressure at rest were 0.97 and 0.93, and for functional profile length they were 0.9 and 0.78, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficients and Lin's concordance coefficients of air charged and microtip catheters were r = 0.82 and rho = 0.79 for maximum urethral closure pressure at rest, and r = 0.73 and rho = 0.7 for functional profile length, respectively. When applying the Bland and Altman method, air charged catheters gave higher readings than microtip catheters for maximum urethral closure pressure at rest (mean difference 7.5 cm H(2)O) and functional profile length (mean difference 1.8 mm). There were wide 95% limits of agreement for differences in maximum urethral closure pressure at rest (-24.1 to 39 cm H(2)O) and functional profile length (-7.7 to 11.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS: For urethral pressure measurement the air charged catheter is at least as reliable as the microtip catheter and it generally gives higher readings. However, air charged and microtip catheters cannot be used interchangeably for clinical purposes because of insufficient agreement. Hence, clinicians should be aware that air charged and microtip catheters may yield completely different results, and these differences should be acknowledged during clinical decision making.
Authors: Paul J Johnson; Evan M Rosenbluth; Ingrid E Nygaard; Monir K Parikh; Robert W Hitchcock Journal: Biomed Microdevices Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.838
Authors: Carlos H Suzuki Bellucci; Jens Wöllner; Flavia Gregorini; Dorothee Birnböck; Marko Kozomara; Ulrich Mehnert; Thomas M Kessler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240