Pilot Trial of Midstream Urine Collection Device Versus Transurethral Catheter in Women With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Practicality of Use in a Clinical Setting, Patient Preferences, and Comparison of Laboratory Findings.
Journal
Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2154-4212
Titre abrégé: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
9
4
2020
medline:
11
1
2022
entrez:
9
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate successful use of a midstream urine collection device in women with lower urinary tract symptoms and to assess specimen contamination. Nonpregnant women 18 years or older without use of antibiotics in the last 4 weeks were recruited. After using the midstream urine collection device to obtain a specimen in a private restroom, a paired specimen was obtained by transurethral catheterization. Patients completed preference questionnaires. Culture organisms and microscopic urinalysis of paired specimens (device vs catheterized) were compared using the McNemar χ2 test. Bivariate analysis was performed. Successful use was demonstrated in 54 (77%) of 70. Reasons for failure included inadequate specimen volume and improper device use. Older median age (50 vs 72 years, P = 0.0003) and history of diabetes (7% vs 27%, P = 0.037) were associated with failed use. Organisms were discordant in 21 (41%) of 51 paired urine culture specimens. The device detected 7 (88%) of 8 uropathogens. There were no detectable differences in microscopic urinalysis. The midstream urine collection device could increase comfort, and many patients prefer it to transurethral catheterization. With proper patient selection and instructions for use, this device could increase satisfaction. Further studies are needed to assess contamination rates with this device.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32265404
pii: 01436319-202106000-00007
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000865
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
371-376Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Références
Schappert SM. Ambulatory care visits of physician offices, hospital outpatient departments, and emergency departments: United States, 1995. Vital Health Stat 13 1997;1–38.
Rosenberg M. Pharmacoeconomics of treating uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999;11(3–4):245–251.
Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Am J Med 2002;113:S5–S13.
Dunivan GC, Sussman AL, Jelovsek JE, et al. Gaining the patient perspective on pelvic floor disorders’ surgical adverse events. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220(2):185.e1–185e10.
Jackson SR, Dryden M, Gillett P, et al. A novel midstream urine-collection device reduces contamination rates in urine cultures amongst women. BJU Int 2005;96(3):360–364.
Collier S, Matijiu F, Jones G, et al. A prospective study comparing contamination rates between a novel mid-stream urine collection device (Peezy) and a standard method in renal patients. J Clin Pathol 2014;67(2):139–142.
Lough ME, Shradar E, Hseieh C, et al. Contamination in adult midstream clean-catch urine cultures in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Nurs 2019;45(5):488–501.
Southworth E, Hochstedler B, Price TK, et al. A cross-sectional pilot cohort study comparing standard urine collection to the Peezy midstream device for research studies involving women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25:e28–e33.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–381.
Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in women. Committee Opinion No. 703. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e168–e172.