Andreas Wiedemann1,2, A Mourad3,4, C Gedding3,4, J Stein5, A Manseck6, R Kirschner-Hermanns7,8, T Liebald9, C Linné9, A Schorn10, A Wagner11, V Moll12, U Unger13, A Eisenhardt14, J Salem15, A Bannowsky16, S Wirz17, E Brammen18, H-J Heppner4,19,20. 1. Urologische Abteilung, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Witten gGmbH, Pferdebachstr. 27, 58455, Witten, Deutschland. awiedemann@evk-witten.de. 2. Lehrstuhl für Geriatrie, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Deutschland. awiedemann@evk-witten.de. 3. Urologische Abteilung, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Witten gGmbH, Pferdebachstr. 27, 58455, Witten, Deutschland. 4. Lehrstuhl für Geriatrie, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Deutschland. 5. Urologische Abteilung, Klinikum Großburgwedel, Großburgwedel, Deutschland. 6. Urologische Abteilung, Klinikum Ingolstadt GmbH, Ingolstadt, Deutschland. 7. Neuro-Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland. 8. Neuro-Urologie, Neurologisches Rehabilitationszentrum Bonn-Godeshöhe, Bonn, Deutschland. 9. Praxis für Urologie, Dresden, Deutschland. 10. Praxis für Urologie, Saarburg, Deutschland. 11. Praxis für Urologie, Limburgerhof, Deutschland. 12. Praxis für Urologie, Augsburg, Deutschland. 13. Praxis für Urologie, Oelsnitz, Deutschland. 14. Praxis für Urologie, Mülheim a. d. Ruhr, Deutschland. 15. Curos urologisches Zentrum Köln, Abteilung für Urologie, Klinik Links vom Rhein, Köln, Deutschland. 16. Klinik für Urologie, Imland-Klinik Rendsburg, Rendsburg, Deutschland. 17. Abteilung für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Schmerz und Palliativmedizin, Zentrum für Schmerzmedizin, Weaningzentrum, GFO-Kliniken Bonn/Cura Bad Honnef, Bonn, Deutschland. 18. Institut für Statistik, Chrestos Concept GmbH & Co. KG, Essen, Deutschland. 19. Geriatrische Abteilung und Tagesklinik, Helios-Klinikum Schwelm, Schwelm, Deutschland. 20. Institut für Biomedizin , de, s Alterns, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In urology, a subset of patients with lifelong urine drainage are fitted with a catheter valve. Data on catheter-related quality of life (crqol) in this subset of patients are missing. AIM: Clarification of the whether there are advantages for valve-aided catheters in comparison with continuous urine drainage in catheter wearers with a lifelong indication. METHODS: In all, 357 patients with a catheter with lifelong indication of continuous urine drainage from a previous study were compared with 70 valve-aided patients. The crqol was evaluated by a validated assessment with 25 items and five domains. RESULTS: There were statistically more patients with a suprapubic catheter than with a transurethral indwelling catheter (73.4 vs. 54.4%, p = 0.005), significantly more patients with bladder voiding dysfunction (73.5 vs. 52.6%, p = 0.003) and significantly more patients with small catheter sizes (p = 0.001). Crqol was altogether slightly impaired with a median score of 4.2 (no impairment indicated by 5 points) in valve-aided patients, but crqol was more impaired in valve-aided patients compared to patients with continuous drainage (4.4 points, n. s.). Some items demonstrated more problems dealing with urinary urge in valve-aided patients, but catheter-related pain was more often worse in patients with continuous drainage. CONCLUSION: There is no clear evidence for an advantage of a catheter valve over a continuous urine drainage system. Thus, the decision regarding a catheter-valve system must be made individually according to the indication and the preferences of the patient.
BACKGROUND: In urology, a subset of patients with lifelong urine drainage are fitted with a catheter valve. Data on catheter-related quality of life (crqol) in this subset of patients are missing. AIM: Clarification of the whether there are advantages for valve-aided catheters in comparison with continuous urine drainage in catheter wearers with a lifelong indication. METHODS: In all, 357 patients with a catheter with lifelong indication of continuous urine drainage from a previous study were compared with 70 valve-aided patients. The crqol was evaluated by a validated assessment with 25 items and five domains. RESULTS: There were statistically more patients with a suprapubic catheter than with a transurethral indwelling catheter (73.4 vs. 54.4%, p = 0.005), significantly more patients with bladder voiding dysfunction (73.5 vs. 52.6%, p = 0.003) and significantly more patients with small catheter sizes (p = 0.001). Crqol was altogether slightly impaired with a median score of 4.2 (no impairment indicated by 5 points) in valve-aided patients, but crqol was more impaired in valve-aided patients compared to patients with continuous drainage (4.4 points, n. s.). Some items demonstrated more problems dealing with urinary urge in valve-aided patients, but catheter-related pain was more often worse in patients with continuous drainage. CONCLUSION: There is no clear evidence for an advantage of a catheter valve over a continuous urine drainage system. Thus, the decision regarding a catheter-valve system must be made individually according to the indication and the preferences of the patient.
Authors: A Wiedemann; C Gedding; M Heese; J Stein; A Manseck; R Kirschner-Hermanns; H Karstedt; A Schorn; A Wagner; V Moll; U Unger; A Eisenhardt; A Bannowsky; C Linné; S Wirz; E Brammen; H-J Heppner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 0.639