RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Time needed to perform intermittent catheterization in adults with spinal cord injury: A pilot randomized controlled cross-over study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.16.21253936
DO 10.1101/2021.08.16.21253936
A1 Karthik Gopalakrishnan
A1 Nick Fabrin Nielsen
A1 Andrea L. Ramirez
A1 Jeppe Sørensen
A1 Matthias Walter
A1 Andrei V. Krassioukov
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/18/2021.08.16.21253936.abstract
AB Background Intermittent catheterization (IC), considered the gold standard for bladder management for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) with sufficient dexterity, is usually performed using hydrophilic (HPC) or non-hydrophilic (non-HPC) catheters. Currently, there is no evidence on the temporal burden associated with IC with either catheter.Objective To compare both catheters regarding their time requirement for IC and participant satisfaction.Design, setting and participants Twenty individuals with chronic (>1-year) SCI at any spinal segment were randomized to undergo two cross-over assessments within 10 days (i.e., either starting with HPC or non-HPC). We measured time taken to perform IC using a 13 step pre-determined IC protocol (e.g., enter bathroom, wash hands, transfer to toilet, etc.). Furthermore, we assessed user satisfaction of both catheters using a Likert scale (i.e., strongly agree=5, strongly disagree=1).Outcome measures and statistical analysis Time (i.e., for each step and in total) to perform IC and participant satisfaction were compared between catheters using non-parametric statistics, i.e., Wilcoxon rank sign tests. Results are presented as median with interquartile range.Results and limitations Participants using HPCs spent less time to prepare a catheter [15 s (10-20) vs. 41 (20-69), p=0.002] and overall to perform IC [283 s (242-352) vs. 373 (249-441), p=0.01] compared to non-HPCs. Moreover, participants rated the preparation of HPCs to be easier [5 (4-5) vs. 4 (2-4), p=0.047] compared to non-HPCs. The key limitation of this pilot study was the sample size.Conclusions Preparation and usage of HPCs for IC is easier and faster compared to non-HPCs. IC can be a significant temporal burden for SCI individuals.Patient summary We compared coated and uncoated catheters on time needed for intermittent catheterization and user satisfaction in individuals with spinal cord injury. Participants can manually empty their bladder quicker and easier with coated compared to uncoated catheters.Competing Interest StatementMatthias Walter receives or has received research support from the Rick Hansen Institute & Foundation, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Pfizer Canada, Coloplast, and Wellspect. Nick Fabrin Nielsen and Jeppe Soerensen were employed by Coloplast when the study was conducted. Andrei V. Krassioukov receives or has received research support from the Craig Neilsen Foundation, the Rick Hansen Institute & Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, the Minnesota Spinal Cord Injury and Traumatic Brain Injury Research Grant Program, Wings For Life Spinal Cord Research Foundation, Pfizer, Allergan, Coloplast, and Purdue; serves on advisory boards for Coloplast, Wellspect, and the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation; and is president of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA).Clinical TrialNCT05003999Funding StatementThis study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Coloplast A/S, Humlebaek, Denmark (grant number COLO-AK-NLUTD-SCI: F18-03036). The funder had no role in data collection or on decision to publish. The funder was involved in the study design, interpretation of the data, and preparation as well as review of the manuscript. Dr. Walter was supported by a 2017-2019 Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR) and Rick Hansen Foundation Postdoctoral Research Trainee Award (Grant number 17110). Dr. Krassioukov research is supported by the Endowed Chair in Rehabilitation Medicine, ICORD, The University of British Columbia.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This pilot cross-over randomized controlled trial (RCT) was approved by the University of British Columbia (UBC) Research Ethics Board (H17-03228) and Vancouver Coastal Health (V17-03228), while conforming to the Declaration of Helsinki.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available from the authors upon request.