Recommendations for conducting invasive urodynamics for men with lower urinary tract symptoms: Qualitative interview findings from a large randomized controlled trial (UPSTREAM)

Lucy E Selman, Cynthia A Ochieng, Amanda L Lewis, Marcus J Drake, Jeremy Horwood, Lucy E Selman, Cynthia A Ochieng, Amanda L Lewis, Marcus J Drake, Jeremy Horwood

Abstract

Aims: To capture in-depth qualitative evidence regarding attitudes to and experiences of urodynamic testing among men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) at each end of the clinical pathway.

Methods: Semi-structured interview study conducted within the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery: Randomized Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) trial, which randomized men to a care pathway including urodynamics or routine non-invasive tests from 26 secondary care urology sites across England. Men were interviewed after assessments but prior to treatment, or after surgery for LUTS. Men were purposively sampled to include those who had urodynamics and those who did not, and diversity in demographic characteristics and symptom burden. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Forty-one men participated (25 pre-treatment, 16 post-surgery), ages 52-89. The 16 men who had not previously experienced urodynamics said they would accept the test in their assessment, but some were apprehensive or wanted more information. The 25 men who had experienced urodynamics all found it acceptable, though some reported pain, infection, or embarrassment. Embarrassment was minimized by informing patients what the procedure would be like, and ensuring privacy. Urodynamics was valued for its perceived diagnostic insight. Information deficits were reported before, during, and after the test. How and when results were explained and the adequacy of explanations varied.

Conclusions: Urodynamics is acceptable to men with LUTS and generally well-tolerated. To ensure patients are prepared and informed, good communication before and during the procedure is essential. Privacy should be prioritized, and test results discussed promptly and in sufficient detail. Staff require training and guidance in these areas.

Keywords: LUTS; transurethral resection of the prostate; urodynamics.

© 2017 The Authors. Neurourology and Urodynamics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

References

    1. Coyne KS, Wein AJ, Tubaro A, et al. The burden of lower urinary tract symptoms: evaluating the effect of LUTS on health‐related quality of life, anxiety and depression: EpiLUTS. BJU Int. 2009;103:4–11.
    1. Clement KD, Burden H, Warren K, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Drake MJ. Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD011179.
    1. Drake MJ, Lewis AL, Lane JA. Urodynamic testing for men with voiding symptoms considering interventional therapy: the merits of a properly constructed randomised trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69:759–760.
    1. Adekanmi OA, Edwards GJ, Barrington JW. The variation in urodynamic practice in the United Kingdom. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22:48–50.
    1. Yokoyama T, Nozaki K, Nose H, Inoue M, Nishiyama Y, Kumon H. Tolerability and morbidity of urodynamic testing: a questionnaire‐based study. Urology. 2005;66:74–76.
    1. Klingler H, Madersbacher S, Djavan B, Schatzl G, Marberger M, Schmidbauer C. Morbidity of the evaluation of the lower urinary tract with transurethral multichannel pressure‐flow studies. J Urol. 1998;159:191–194.
    1. Clement KD, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Glazener CM. Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults: a short version Cochrane systematic review and meta‐analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:407–412.
    1. Martin JL, Williams KS, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Assassa RP. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of methods of diagnostic assessment for urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25:674–683.
    1. Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, et al. EAU guidelines on the assessment of non‐neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1099–1109.
    1. Bailey K, Abrams P, Blair PS, et al. Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) for diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:567.
    1. Oh S‐J, Son H, Yun Jeong J, Hyeon Ku J. Patients’ experience with ambulatory urodynamics: a prospective study. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006;40:391–396.
    1. Almallah Y, Rennie C, Stone J, Lancashire M. Urinary tract infection and patient satisfaction after flexible cystoscopy and urodynamic evaluation. Urology. 2000;56:37–39.
    1. Suskind AM, Clemens JQ, Kaufman SR, et al. Patient perceptions of physical and emotional discomfort related to urodynamic testing: a questionnaire‐based study in men and women with and without neurologic conditions. Urology. 2015;85:547–551.
    1. Quek P, Tay LH. Morbidity and significant bacteriuria after urodynamic studies. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004;33:754–757.
    1. Scarpero HM, Padmanabhan P, Xue X, Nitti VW. Patient perception of videourodynamic testing: a questionnaire based study. J Urol. 2005;173:555–559.
    1. Ku JH, Kim SW, Kim HH, Paick J‐S, Son H, Oh S‐J. Patient experience with a urodynamic study: a prospective study in 208 patients. J Urol. 2004;171:2307–2310.
    1. Yiou R, Audureau E, Loche CM, Dussaud M, Lingombet O, Binhas M. Comprehensive evaluation of embarrassment and pain associated with invasive urodynamics. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:156–160.
    1. Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa PR, Jackson C. Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1356–1363.
    1. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health Medical Research Council: Medical Research Council; 2000. Available from: .
    1. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: protecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ. 2002;325:766–770.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32‐item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–357.
    1. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, Jr. , O'Leary MP, et al. The American urological association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2017;197:S189–s197.
    1. Smith T, Noble M, Noble S, Wright G, McLennan D, Plunkett E. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015, Department for Communities and Local Government, Crown Copyright, London 2015.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
    1. Ellis‐Jones J, Swithinbank L, Abrams P. The bridges and barriers to ‘good’ urodynamic practice: a regional perspective. Int J Urol Nurs. 2013;7:3–8.
    1. Greenstein A, Bar‐Yosef Y, Chen J, Matzkin H. Does information provided to men before a urodynamic study affect their expectation of pain? BJU Int. 2005;96:1307–1309.
    1. Bright E, Parsons BA, Swithinbank L. Increased patient information does not reduce patient anxiety regarding urodynamic studies. Urol Int. 2011;87:314–318.
    1. Stav K, Siegel YI, Beberashvili I, Sella HZ, Zisman A. Provision of information leaflet before urodynamic study reduces the pre‐examination anxiety level. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:805–808.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj