[Do the incontinent patients improve their equality of life using a humidity detector device?]. / Mejora un detector de humedad la calidad de vida de los pacientes con incontinencia urinaria?: un estudio piloto.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of a humidity detector device on the quality of life of patients with urinary incontinence IU. METHOD: Quasi-experimental study: a series of ten cases followed for a month. The devices were placed and the questionnaires filled in before and after using it for at least ten hours a day during a month. Health related quality of life was assessed through the questionnaires for IU convalidated and adapted to our specific environment: Urogenital Inventory Distress (UDI) and Incontinence Impact Questionary (IIQ). An improvement of 58 points by a four option Likert scale was considered a positive impact in the quality of life (IIQ). The scores obtained in UDI and IIQ are described before and after use the device and paried T test and Wilcoxon sign test were carried out to compare the scores obtained in each instance. The capacity to detect a difference of 58 points on the UDI scale was calculated (minimum relevant difference). A binomial test was undertaken to ascertain a probability of achieving an increase in the above mentioned index which would exceed the clinical relevance threshold. RESULTS: Average increase in IIQ improvement: x = 5.48 (Std Error = 20.43) 95% CI = -34.56 to 45.56. Average increase in UDI improvement: x = -11.87 (Std Error = 20.70) 95% IC = -52.45 to 28.70. The power of the analysis to detect as relevant a difference of a 588 point increase in IIQ 71.1% and probability of obtaining a relevant improvement in the questionnaire IIQ 10% (IC 95%) 0% to 39.4%. CONCLUSIONS: A negative impact in the Quality of Life due to frequent changes of incontinence pads.

¿Mejora un detector de humedad la calidad de vida de los pacientes con incontinencia urinaria?: Un estudio piloto / Do the incontinent patients improve their quality of life using a humidity detector device?

FUNDAMENTO: Estimar el efecto de un detector de humedad en la calidad de vida de los pacientes con incontinencia urinaria por rebosamiento. MÉTODO: Estudio antes-después, valorando la calidad de vida mediante cuestionarios específicos para incontinencia urinaria, traducidos y adaptados a nuestro medio: Consecuencias de la Incontinencia (Incontinence Impact Questionnaire original) y Malestar en el Área Urogenital (Urogenital Distress Inventory original). Los sujetos de estudio fueron personas con Incontinencia por rebosamiento de distintas etiologías, que requieren una reeducación vesical para procurar un vaciado periódico. RESULTADOS: El poder del estudio para detectar la mejoría relevante de 58 puntos en el CDI fue de 71 por ciento. La mejoría observada en el CDI fue de 5.5 puntos (95 por ciento CI= -34,56 a 45,56) y en el MAU de -11.87 (95 por cientoCI= -52,45 a 28,71). CONCLUSIONES: No observamos un impacto positivo en la CV, ya que las pérdidas continuas, obligaban a cambiar constantemente los absorbentes (AU)

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of a humidity detector device on the quality of life of patients with urinary incontinence IU. METHOD: Quasi-experimental study: a series of ten cases followed for a month. The devices were placed and the questionaires filled in before and after using it for at least ten hours a day during a month. Health related quality of life was assessed through the questionaires for IU convalidated and adapted to our specific environment: Urogenital Inventory Distress (UDI) and Incontinence Impact Questionary (IIQ). An improvement of 58 points by a four option Likert scale was considered a positive impact in the quality of life (IIQ). The scores obtained in UDI and IIQ are described before and after use the device and paried T test and Wilcoxon sign test were carried out to compare the scores obtained in each instance. The capacity to detect a difference of 58 points on the UDI scale was calculated (minimum relevant difference). A binomial test was undertaken to ascertain a probability of achieving an increase in the above mentioned index which would exceed the clinical relevance threshold. RESULTS: Average increase in IIQ improvement: x=5.48 (Std Error = 20.43) 95% CI=-34.56 to 45.56. Average increase in UDI improvement: x=-11.87 (Std Error = 20.70) 95% IC=-52.45 to 28.70. The power of the analysis to detect as relevant a difference of a 588 point increase in IIQ 71.1% and probability of obtaining a relevant improvement in the questionaire IIQ 10% (IC 95%) 0% to 39.4%. CONCLUSIONS: A negative impact in the Quality of Life due to frequent changes of incontinence pads (AU)

[White coat and non-dipper hypertension in patients recently diagnosed with mild hypertension]. / Hipertensión de bata blanca e hipertensos non-dippers en pacientes recientemente diagnosticados de hipertensión arterial ligera.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) in patients recently diagnosed with light hypertension. To compare their demographic features, cardiovascular risk factors, and the level of early organic effect of WCH versus sustained hypertension, and dippers versus non-dippers. DESIGN: Descriptive, crossover study. SETTING: Five urban health centres. PATIENTS: 238 people between 18 and 65 were chosen. After screening, they were diagnosed with light (1993 WHO criteria) or essential hypertension. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients received: 24-hour out-patient control of blood pressure (BP), analysis, back of eye and electrocardiogram. WCH was defined as mean daily BP < 139/88 mmHg and mean night-time BP < 123/74 mmHg. Non-dippers were those patients whose mean night-time BP went down from the daytime BP by less than 10%. 39.5% had WCH (33.3-45.7). This was associated with women (49.5%), with lower casual systolic and diastolic BP and with isolated systolic hypertension, p < 0.05. Risk of WCH was 2.14 times greater in women (95% CI, 1.24-3.70). There were no significant differences in the cardiovascular risk or morbidity profile between WCH and sustained HT, or between dippers and non-dippers. CONCLUSIONS: WCH is common in patients recently diagnosed with both light and essential hypertension. This makes us think that the use of primary care out-patient monitoring of BP could be efficient in this type of patient. The absence of significant differences between WCH and sustained hypertension, or between dippers and non-dippers, may be due to their hypertension being recent.