Filter results

Chronic Urinary Retention clinical trials

Phase 1: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
Phase 2: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
Phase 3: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.
Phase 4: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.

View clinical trials related to Chronic Urinary Retention.

Filter by:

Completed
Page 1

NCT ID: NCT01164280 Completed - Clinical trials for Overactive Bladder Syndrome

Effect of Pulse Rate Changes on Clinical Outcome

Start date: July 2008
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of pulse rate changes on the clinical response and stimulation related pain symptoms in sacral neuromodulation (SNM) treatment. Materials and Methods: This pilot study evaluated the effect of 4 different pulse rates (5.2Hz-10Hz-21Hz-40Hz) in patients with suboptimal response to SNM. The effect of each frequency was evaluated over test period of 6 days. To avoid carry over effect, stimulation was kept off for 24 hours between consecutive test periods. The last 3 days of every test period, a voiding diary (VD) and questionnaire was filled in. The changes on clinical response and pain symptoms were compared between the four pulse-rates using multivariate analysis. Results: Fifty patients were included of which 40 (80%) were female. Mean age was 55.5yr (SD 12.3). Forty-one patients (82%) had overactive bladder symptoms and 9 (18%) had chronic non-obstructive urinary retention. No significant difference was found regarding clinical outcome (VD and questionnaire) between the different pulse rates. Furthermore, none of the four pulse rates was significantly related to the occurrence of SNM-related pain. However, on individual basis, patients appear to benefit from changing the pulse rate concerning both treatment efficacy and stimulation related pain. Conclusions: On group level, none of the four pulse rates in this study appears to have a significantly different effect on clinical outcome or SNM-related pain. However, a tailor-made approach for optimizing treatment efficacy by changing the pulse rate might be useful.