| Literature DB >> 29279881 |
Abstract
Generally accepted guidelines are not yet available on the management of underactive bladder (UAB). Although the natural history of UAB is still not fully understood, observation may be an acceptable management option in patients with tolerable lower urinary tract symptoms and little risk of upper urinary tract damage. If needed, scheduled and double voiding may be recommended as an effective and safe add-on therapy. Parasympathomimetics have been widely used for the management of UAB, but the evidence does not support clinical benefit. The efficacy of alpha-blockers has also not yet been clearly demonstrated. However, selective alpha-blockers may help to enhance voiding efficiency and to decrease possible upper tract damage. Sacral neuromodulation is a surgical option for nonobstructive UAB approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, the response rate of test stimulation is not high and the efficacy of permanent implants does not always coincide with that of test stimulation. Although surgery to reduce outlet resistance may be a viable option in UAB with presumed obstruction, surgery seems to have little role in those without obstruction. Latissimus dorsi detrusor myoplasty has shown promising results in restoring voluntary voiding in selected patients. The procedure requires a multidisciplinary team approach of urologists and plastic reconstructive experts. In summary, current treatments of UAB remain unsatisfactory. The multifactorial nature of UAB pathogenesis complicates the appropriate management for each patient. Future research to establish a more clinically relevant definition of UAB will be required to open new era of UAB management.Entities:
Keywords: Drug therapy; Operative surgical procedures; Urinary bladder; Urinary bladder, neurogenic
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29279881 PMCID: PMC5740035 DOI: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.S2.S90
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Investig Clin Urol ISSN: 2466-0493
Randomized controlled trials of parasympathomimetics for underactive bladder
| Study | Intervention | Indication | Endpoint | No. of patients | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fleming [ | Bethanechol 15 mg SC every 4 h vs. no treatment | Prevention of AUR postpartum | Catheterization and PVRU | 1,796 | No significant difference between groups |
| Barrett [ | Bethanechol 25, 50, or 100 mg×1 oral vs. placebo 60 min before UDS | Women with persistent high PVRU but no sign of neurological disease or BOO | Urodynamic changes | 48 | No significant difference between groups for voided volume, residual volume, % residual volume, mean flow rate, or intravesical pressure |
| Shah et al. [ | Distigmine 0.5 mg IM×1 for 4 d vs. placebo | Treatment of AUR after prostatectomy | MFR and recatheterization rate | 93 | No significant difference between groups |
| Gottesman et al. [ | Bethanechol 10 mg×1 SC vs. midazolam vs. combination vs. placebo | Treatment of AUR after anorectal surgery | Incidence of catheterization | 132 | 0% vs. 69% responders for placebo and bethanechol (p=0.05) irrespective of other treatment |
| Savona-Ventura et al. [ | Distigmine 5 mg×1 oral vs. phenoxybenzamine 10 mg×2 oral vs. intravesical PGF2α 7.5 mg vs. placebo from 1 d after surgery | Prevention of AUR after vaginal surgery for genital prolapse | PVRU after surgery | 100 | Statistically significant increase in PVRU for distigmine vs. placebo |
| Kemp et al. [ | Bethanechol 50 mg×3 oral vs. no treatment | Prophylaxis of detrusor hypotonia after W-G operation | Hospital stay, catheter treatment, rate of cystitis, and PVRU | 40 | Hospital stay 18.6 d vs. 15.5 d, catheter treatment 13.3 d vs. 9.6 d; rate of cystitis 25.0% vs. 18.8%; PVRU<50 mL after 13 d vs. 8 d for no treatment vs. bethanechol; all differences p<0.01 |
| Burger et al. [ | Carbachol/diazepam 2 mg each vs. alfuzosin 2.5 mg vs. placebo, all×1 oral | Treatment of AUR after general surgery | Voiding within 2 h after medication | 249 | No significant differences between groups |
| Hindley et al. [ | Bethanechol 4×50 mg daily oral+intravesical PGE2×1/wk vs. placebo for 6 wk | Treatment of UAB | PVRU | 19 | Relative to baseline statistically significant reduction with active treatment but not with placebo, but effect size judged as ‘limited therapeutic effect’ by investigator |
| Yamanishi et al. [ | Bethanechol 20 mg×3 or distigmine 5 mg×3 oral vs. urapidil 30 mg×2 vs. combined for 4 wk | Treatment of UAB | Mean and max flow rate, PVRU, IPSS | 119 | No significant effect of cholinergic agonists vs. baseline |
SC, subcutaneous; AUR, acute urinary retention; UDS, urodynamic study; PVRU, postvoid residual urine volume; BOO, bladder outlet obstruction; IM, intramuscular; MFR, maximal flow rate; PGF2, prostaglandin F2; PGE2, prostaglandin E2; W–G, Wertheim-Meigs; UAB, underactive bladder; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score.
Modified from Barendrecht et al. BJU Int 2007;99:749-52 [8], with permission of John Wiley & Sons.