International urogynecology journal · 2022
Dipstick urinalysis does not predict post-urodynamic study morbidity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roberts Kasey, Alfahmy Anood, Mitchell Diana, Kamumbu Stacy, Sebikali-Potts Audry, Sheyn David
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pre-procedure urinalysis may add unnecessary cost and inconvenience for patients undergoing urodynamics. The hypothesis of this study was that urinalysis would perform poorly when predicting complications following urodynamics.
METHODS: Case-control study of women aged 18-89 undergoing urodynamics from 01 January2008 to 31 December 2017 at two tertiary medical centers. Data collected included patient demographics, past medical history, lower urinary tract symptoms, urodynamics indication, urodynamics results, urinalysis result, antibiotic administration, and adverse events within 30 days. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare those with and without an adverse event. Logistic regression was performed using statistically significant variables on pairwise analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 601 patients met the criteria; 11 of these experienced an adverse event, of which all were a urinary tract infection. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events based on any urinalysis result, regardless of whether the patient received antibiotics. On pairwise analysis, variables associated with a higher frequency of adverse events were higher parity (3.5 (2-5) vs 2 (2, 3), p=0.038) and complaint of suprapubic pain (1 (9.1%) vs 4 (0.7%), p=0.002). On logistic regression, significant variables included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.03 per year (95% CI 1.03-4.06); p=0.002), any prolapse (aOR 6.45 (95% CI 3.60-11.54); p<0.001), pelvic organ prolapse as the indication for urodynamics (aOR 7.27 (95% CI 2.60-20.36); p<0.001), and a diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence (4.98 (95% CI 1.95-12.67); p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The frequency of adverse events after urodynamics is low, and urinalysis in asymptomatic patients does not seem to be useful in predicting morbidity.
METHODS: Case-control study of women aged 18-89 undergoing urodynamics from 01 January2008 to 31 December 2017 at two tertiary medical centers. Data collected included patient demographics, past medical history, lower urinary tract symptoms, urodynamics indication, urodynamics results, urinalysis result, antibiotic administration, and adverse events within 30 days. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare those with and without an adverse event. Logistic regression was performed using statistically significant variables on pairwise analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 601 patients met the criteria; 11 of these experienced an adverse event, of which all were a urinary tract infection. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events based on any urinalysis result, regardless of whether the patient received antibiotics. On pairwise analysis, variables associated with a higher frequency of adverse events were higher parity (3.5 (2-5) vs 2 (2, 3), p=0.038) and complaint of suprapubic pain (1 (9.1%) vs 4 (0.7%), p=0.002). On logistic regression, significant variables included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.03 per year (95% CI 1.03-4.06); p=0.002), any prolapse (aOR 6.45 (95% CI 3.60-11.54); p<0.001), pelvic organ prolapse as the indication for urodynamics (aOR 7.27 (95% CI 2.60-20.36); p<0.001), and a diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence (4.98 (95% CI 1.95-12.67); p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The frequency of adverse events after urodynamics is low, and urinalysis in asymptomatic patients does not seem to be useful in predicting morbidity.