Comparisons of Urodynamic, Bladder Diary, Quality of Life Parameters Between OAB-wet and OAB-dry Female Patients (OAB)

June 22, 2018 updated by: National Taiwan University Hospital
A small bladder capacity and more frequent urgency episodes were predictors of OAB-wet, and the above findings might indicate that OAB-wet and OAB-dry are a continuum of OAB. Older age, high maximum flow rate, high detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate and the presence of urodynamic stress incontinence were also independent predictors for OAB-wet, and the above might indicate that OAB-wet and OAB-dry have at least partly different underlying pathophysiologies.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

Aims: To identify factors predicting the presence of OAB-wet and to further derive the underlying pathophysiology in OAB-wet vs. OAB-dry.

Methods: Between September 2007 and September 2013, the medical records of women with OAB who completed a 3-day bladder diary and underwent urodynamic studies in a tertiary referral center will be reviewed. OAB-wet will be diagnosed in patients who complained of at least one episode of urgency incontinence in the previous month; otherwise, OAB-dry is diagnosed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis will be used to predict the presence of OAB-wet.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

623

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

20 years to 99 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Women with OAB who completed a 3-day bladder diary and underwent urodynamic studies at the urogynecologic outpatient clinics of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of a medical center

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. The diagnosis of overactive bladder disease
  2. Female patient of more than 20 year-old

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Dominant symptoms with stress urinary incontinence (SUI)
  2. Regular urethral catheterization or intermittent self-catheterization
  3. Urinary tract infection or chronic inflammation in the previous 2 weeks
  4. Bladder calculus
  5. A history of pelvic radiotherapy
  6. A preexisting malignant pelvic tumor.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Compare the difference of urodynamic parameters between OAB-wet and OAB-dry
Time Frame: 1 week
The variables of urodynamic study included maximum flow rate, average flow rate, voided volume, volume of strong to desire, detrusor pressure at maximum flow during voiding cystometry (PdetQmax), Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP), maximal urethral pressure (MUP), maximal urethral closure pressure (MUCP), functional profile length, urethral closure pressure area (UCPA), continence length, continence area, pressure transmission ratio (PTR) at MUP, and electromyography (EMG). The urodynamic parameters will be interpreted together to get a complete urodynamic report and diagnosis, thus to compare the difference between OAB-wet and OAB-dry
1 week
Compare the difference of bladder diary parameters between OAB-wet and OAB-dry
Time Frame: 1 week
The 3-day bladder diary parameters included maximum daytime voided volume excluding the morning void derived from 3-day bladder diaries (DVVmax), urgency episodes, urgency incontinence episodes, daytime frequency, nocturia, total voided volume and total water intake. The bladder diary parameters will be interpreted together to get a complete report, such as urinary urgency and nocturia, thus to compare the difference between OAB-wet and OAB-dry
1 week

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

May 5, 2014

Primary Completion (Actual)

April 5, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

April 5, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 25, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 6, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

June 18, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 26, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 22, 2018

Last Verified

April 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe