Variation of diagnosis and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infections: an online survey among caretakers involved.

Background: The diagnosis of a clinically significant catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) in patients performing clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) or with an indwelling catheter (IC) can be challenging. Objective: To get an insight into the variation of the used definition, diagnosis and management of CAUTIs by relevant healthcare workers in the Netherlands. Design: An online clinical scenario-based survey. Methods: The survey was built in Limesurvey and distributed to healthcare workers from randomly selected urology departments, rehabilitation departments/centres and general practice offices between January and May 2022. Questions regarding their field of experience, management strategies, used guidelines and two hypothetical cases with clinical scenarios of a possible CAUTI were included. Results: A total of 172 individuals participated, of which 112 completed the survey. In all, 32 individuals who completed the survey partially were also included. Participants consisted of 68 [44 urologists, 22 rehabilitation doctors (RDs) and 2 general practitioners (GPs)] doctors, 60 nurses (46 from the urology department and 14 from rehabilitation centres/departments) and 16 medical assistants (13 from urology department and 3 from GP offices). The majority consulted patients with an IC or on CIC on a daily/weekly or monthly basis. In all, 35 urologists (79.5%), 9 RDs (40.9%), 21 (45.7%) nurses in the urology department and 6 (42.9%) nurses from a rehabilitation department/centre indicated bladder irrigation as a treatment option for prevention/treatment of CAUTIs, treatment of symptoms or treatment of blockage of the catheter. In the clinical scenarios presented, treatment discrepancies were seen between subspecialties and healthcare workers. Various guidelines were named for the definition of CAUTIs. Conclusion: A considerable variation in diagnoses and management of CAUTIs between the healthcare workers involved was seen. Uniformity in diagnosing and managing CAUTIs, to prevent overtreatment and possible resistance to antibiotics, is advised. Suitable multidisciplinary guidelines are preferred.

Validation of the Dutch-Language Version of the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.

Background: Neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD), like fecal incontinence and constipation, is a common symptom of disease in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The NBD score is a validated symptom-based questionnaire consisting of 10 multiple-choice questions. The aim of this study was to validate the Dutch version of the NBD score in patients with MS, creating an objective measuring tool of bowel dysfunction. Methods: Translation and validation of the NBD score was performed according to standardized guidelines. Adult patients with MS visiting a urology department completed a set of questionnaires (test): the NBD score, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale (FIQL), the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), and the EQ-5D 3-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). After 1 to 2 weeks, the questionnaires were completed again (retest). A control group recruited at a general practitioner's practice completed the questionnaires once. Data were analyzed for measurement properties. Results: Sixty-one patients and 50 controls were included. Content validity was adequate, internal consistency was moderate (Cronbach α = 0.57 and 0.41), and reproducibility was excellent (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.78). Criterion validity was confirmed; the NBD score correlated moderately/strongly with the FIQL, FISI, and EQ-5D-3L. The NBD scores in the patient group were significantly higher than those in the control group, demonstrating good construct validity. Conclusions: The Dutch version of the NBD score showed moderate to good validity and good reliability for assessment of NBD in patients with MS.

Development of a prediction model in female pure or predominant urge urinary incontinence: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Urinary incontinence is a prevalent form of pelvic floor dysfunction, with a non-negligible impact on a patient's quality of life. There are several treatment options, varying from conservative to invasive. The aim of this study is to predict treatment outcomes of pure or predominant urge urinary incontinence (UUI) in women to support shared decision-making and manage patient expectations. Methods: Data on patient characteristics, disease history, and investigations of 512 consecutive women treated for UUI in three hospitals in the Netherlands were retrospectively collected. The predicted outcome was the short-term subjective continence outcome, defined as patient-reported continence 3 months after treatment categorized as cure (no urinary leakage), improvement (any degree of improvement of urinary leakage), and failure (no improvement or worsening of urinary leakage). Multivariable ordinal regression with backward stepwise selection was performed to analyze association between outcome and patient's characteristics. Interactions between patient characteristics and treatment were added to estimate individual treatment benefit. Discriminative ability was assessed with the ordinal c-statistic. Results: Conservative treatment was applied in 12% of the patients, pharmacological in 62%, and invasive in 26%. Subjective continence outcome was cure, improvement, and failure in 20%, 49%, and 31%, respectively. Number of incontinence episodes per day, voiding frequency during the day, subjective quantity of UI, coexistence of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), night incontinence, and bladder capacity and the interactions between these variables were included in the model. After internal validation, the ordinal c-statistic was 0.699. Conclusions: Six variables were of value to predict pure or predominant UUI treatment outcome in women. Further development into a comprehensive set of models for the use in various pelvic floor disorders and treatments is recommended to optimize individualized care. This model requires external validation before implementation in clinical practice.

Single use versus reusable catheters in intermittent catheterisation for treatment of urinary retention: a protocol for a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial (COMPaRE).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic urinary retention is a common lower urinary tract disorder, mostly neurogenic or idiopathic in origin. The preferred treatment is clean intermittent urinary self-catheterisation (CISC) four to six times a day. In most European countries, virtually all patients use single use catheters, which is in contrast to several countries where the use of reusable catheters is more common. The available literature on the use of reusable catheters is conflicting and until now, no randomised controlled trial with sufficient power has been performed to investigate if reusable catheters for CISC is as safe as single use catheters. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We described this protocol for a prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate if the use of reusable catheters is as safe as single use catheters for CISC patients, measured by symptomatic urinary tract infections (sUTIs). Secondary objectives are adverse events due to a sUTI, urethral damage, stone formation, quality of life and patient satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. 456 Participants will be randomised into two groups stratified for age, gender, menopausal status and (non-)neurogenic underlying disorder. The intervention group will replace the reusable catheter set every 2 weeks for a new set and replace the cleaning solution every 24 hours. The control group continues to use its own catheters. The primary outcome (amount of sUTIs from baseline to 1 year) will be tested for non-inferiority. Categorical outcome measures will be analysed using χ2 tests and quantitative outcome variables by t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. Two-sided p values will be calculated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC (MEC 2019-0134) and will be performed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist for non-inferiority trials. The results of this randomised controlled non-inferiority trial will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be publicly available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8296.

Neurogenic bowel dysfunction score in spinal cord-injured patients: translation and validation of the Dutch-language NBD score.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective validation study. OBJECTIVES: The neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) score is a widely used symptom-based questionnaire evaluating bowel dysfunction and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in spinal cord-injured patients. This study aimed to translate and validate a Dutch-language NBD score in patients with SCI. SETTING: Patients with SCI visiting the urology department or general practitioner (GP) in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. METHODS: Standardized guidelines were followed for the translation and validation process of the NBD score. Adult patients with SCI visiting our urology department were asked to participate by filling in a set of questionnaires: the NBD score, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale (FIQL), the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), and the European Quality of life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) at baseline and 1-2 weeks afterward. A control group recruited at a GP office completed the questionnaires once. The following measurement properties were evaluated: content validity, internal consistency, reproducibility, criterion-, and construct validity. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients and 50 references were included. Content validity was adequate, internal consistency was moderate (Cronbach's alpha 0.56 and 0.30) and reproducibility was adequate (ICC 0.87). Criterion validity was confirmed; NBD score correlated significantly with the FIQL, FISI, and EQ-5D-3L. NBD scores in the patient group were significantly higher than in references, demonstrating good construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch-language version of the NBD score showed moderate to good measurement properties, and therefore is a reliable tool to measure bowel dysfunction in patients with SCI. We recommend standardized usage of this questionnaire for clinical evaluation and research purposes.

Urinary catheterization from 1997 to 2018: a Dutch population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the use of indwelling, intermittent and external urinary catheters in neurogenic and non-neurogenic bladder patients in the Netherlands from 1997 to 2018. METHODS: Data were retrieved from a population-based cohort containing information about the extramural use of medical devices in the insured population in the Netherlands. The insured population increased from 9.9 million people in 1997 to 17.1 million people in 2018 (64-100% of the Dutch population). Users are expressed by users per 100,000 insured people and total users, corrected for the overall Dutch population. The expenditures are corrected for inflation and expressed by total costs and costs per user. RESULTS: During this 21-year period, indwelling catheter (IC) users doubled from 159 per 100,000 people (24,734 users) to 315 per 100,000 people (54,106 users). Clean intermittent catheter (CIC) users increased from 92 per 100,000 people (14,258 users) in 1997 to 267 per 100,000 people (45,909 users) in 2018. Of all users, 20.7% had an associated neurogenic disorder and 44.9% a non-neurogenic disorder in 2018. The total expenditure on extramural use of urinary catheters increased from 27.7 million euros in 1997 to 84.4 million euros in 2018. IC costs increased from 6.0 million euros in 1997 to 6.7 million euros in 2018, while CIC costs rose from 16.4 million euros to 74.6 million euros. Urine drainage bag costs decreased from 17.2 million in 2001 to 5.3 million in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: IC use has increased substantially over the past 21 years, despite the fact that CIC use increased as well. It seems that the main driver behind the prevalence in IC and CIC use, is the rise in incontinence care in older patients and the adaption of preferred CIC use in professional guidelines. At least one fifth of all users catheterize due to neurogenic reasons.

Trends in the use and costs of intermittent urinary catheters in the Netherlands from 1997 to 2018: A population-based observational study.

AIM: To obtain insight into the the use and costs of clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) in the Netherlands from 1997 to 2018. METHODS: For this population-based study, data on the use and costs of disposable catheters were provided by the Drug Information Project database. This database contains information about the Dutch insured population, which increased from 9.9 to 17.1 million persons between 1997 and 2018 (64%-100% of the Dutch population). The following trends were evaluated: (1) CIC users, (2) distribution of users by gender and age-group, (3) distribution of users by neurogenic and non-neurogenic cause for CIC, (4) total costs, and (5) costs per user. Total users are adjusted for the Dutch population. Costs are corrected for inflation and expressed in euros. RESULTS: Extramural use of CIC increased from 14,258 users in 1997 to 45,909 users in 2018. CIC users per 100,000 persons nearly tripled from 92 users to 267 users. Male CIC users almost quadrupled from 92 to 334 per 100,000 insured persons, whereas female users more than doubled from 91 to 201 per 100,000 insured persons. In 2018, 49% of the users had a non-neurogenic cause for CIC. Total costs increased from 16.4 million euros in 1997 to 74.6 million euros in 2018. Costs per user rose from 1151 to 1624 euros (41.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The use and costs of disposable catheters in the Netherlands increased substantially over the past two decades. Non-neurogenic bladder patients represent 49% of the population on CIC, which has not been described before in the literature.

Multiuse Catheters for Clean Intermittent Catheterization in Urinary Retention: Is There Evidence of Inferiority?

In Europe, urinary retention is managed with single-use catheters but there is uncertainty regarding their superiority over multiuse catheters.