Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT04036123 |
Other study ID # |
UDI-Synchrony 2018-00073 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
October 1, 2019 |
Est. completion date |
March 31, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
April 2023 |
Source |
University of Zurich |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Comparison of water-perfused (WP) and air-charged (AC) catheters for invasive urodynamic
investigation (UDI) regarding consistency, features and artifacts.
Description:
UDI is the gold standard to assess refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), i.e. to
detect and specify lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). Therefore, UDI findings lead to
diagnosis and decision-making for further non-invasive and invasive therapies. For UDI
pressure recordings, the use of WP catheters is recommended by the International Continence
Society (ICS).
Currently AC catheters have been marked for pressure recording as an alternative to WP
catheters. However, the number of comparative studies is very limited. Nevertheless, since
release, AC catheters have gained popularity due to their omnidirectional detection of
pressure, and claimed reduction in movement artefacts (due to weight-less air column vs
weighted water column), lack of external reference level, and ease of set-up/use. Still,
there is debate whether AC catheters are an acceptable alternative to fluid-filled lines for
measuring intravesical and intra-abdominal pressure in UDI. Based on the available
literature, an appropriate conclusion, whether both systems can be used as equivalents and
interchangeably, cannot be drawn.
In this study, the investigators compare both systems regarding consistency, features and
artifacts.