A prospective assessment of the validity of the CUA neurogenic bladder guideline

Authors

  • Haider Abed Western University
  • Magdy Hassouna University of Toronto
  • Nader Aldossary King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam
  • Mary McKibbon St Joseph Hospital
  • Blayne Welk University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8439

Keywords:

neurogenic bladder, guidelines, urodynamics

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) neurogenic bladder guideline surveillance strategy for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) has not been formally evaluated. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of the risk stratification suggested in these guidelines.

METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult NLUTD patients with spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or spina bifida who required urodynamics. Patients with a requirement for immediate bladder surgery (not suitable for surveillance) were excluded. Patients completed standardized medical history/questionnaires, baseline urodynamics, renal imaging, and creatinine tests. The primary outcome was the need for different types of urological management between the high-risk and moderate-risk groups.

RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients; most commonly, these were spinal cord injury patients, and most people were using intermittent catheters. At baseline, 62% (40/68) were classified as high-risk. In this group, there was a numerically greater proportion who received a recommendation for a new urological medication (48% vs. 25%, p=0.06) or a change to their bladder management (45% vs. 36%, p=0.44). A total of 26 high-risk and 23 medium-risk NLUTD patients had a one- year followup visit. A larger proportion of the high-risk patients had a recommendation for a new bladder medication (15.4% vs. 8.7% p=0.47), intravesical onabotulinum toxin (34.6% vs. 13% p=0.08), or an alternate method of bladder management (15.4% vs. 4.3%, p=0.2). Mean creatinine change was slightly greater in the high-risk group (+6.1 vs. +0.4 umol/L, p=0.05). Approximately 1/3 of both high-risk and moderate-risk patients didn’t accept the recommended interventions.

CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of high-risk NLUTD patients had urology-relevant interventions recommended, both at baseline and at their one-year followup visit. This supports the general concept of risk stratification and the variables used to define high risk in the CUA’s neurogenic bladder guideline.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-08-29

How to Cite

Abed, H., Hassouna, M., Aldossary, N., McKibbon, M., & Welk, B. (2023). A prospective assessment of the validity of the CUA neurogenic bladder guideline. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 17(12), 404–10. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8439

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 12 (2023): CUAJ December

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.