Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Women With Overactive Bladder Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Aldene Zeno, Stephanie J Handler, Sharon Jakus-Waldman, Tajnoos Yazdany, John N Nguyen
{"title":"Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Women With Overactive Bladder Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Aldene Zeno,&nbsp;Stephanie J Handler,&nbsp;Sharon Jakus-Waldman,&nbsp;Tajnoos Yazdany,&nbsp;John N Nguyen","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to compare optimal response (\"very much better\" or \"much better\" on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I] index) to posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for overactive bladder (OAB) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Secondary outcomes included longitudinal data regarding PTNS use in patients with diabetes and controls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of women in our tertiary care center who completed at least 10 weekly and 1 maintenance PTNS treatments for OAB, excluding patients who were treated with PTNS for a non-OAB primary diagnosis. Participants were grouped into those with diabetes mellitus and those without. Previous research demonstrated a 20% difference in subjective response to anticholinergics in persons with diabetes versus persons without diabetes with OAB. To demonstrate a 20% difference in optimal PGI-I with 80% power, our analysis required 92 patients in each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 356 patients: 96 with diabetes mellitus, and 260 controls. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, with 43 (44.8%) of 96 persons with diabetes versus 115 (44.2%) of 260 controls demonstrating optimal PGI-I response (P = 0.92). Among patients with diabetes, no baseline variables were found to predict treatment response, including hemoglobin A1c greater than 7%, diabetes with sequelae, or higher Charlson Comorbidity Index.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women undergoing PTNS for OAB, the optimal PGI-I response rate is similar in patients with and without diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"27 11","pages":"686-690"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to compare optimal response ("very much better" or "much better" on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I] index) to posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for overactive bladder (OAB) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Secondary outcomes included longitudinal data regarding PTNS use in patients with diabetes and controls.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of women in our tertiary care center who completed at least 10 weekly and 1 maintenance PTNS treatments for OAB, excluding patients who were treated with PTNS for a non-OAB primary diagnosis. Participants were grouped into those with diabetes mellitus and those without. Previous research demonstrated a 20% difference in subjective response to anticholinergics in persons with diabetes versus persons without diabetes with OAB. To demonstrate a 20% difference in optimal PGI-I with 80% power, our analysis required 92 patients in each group.

Results: We identified 356 patients: 96 with diabetes mellitus, and 260 controls. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, with 43 (44.8%) of 96 persons with diabetes versus 115 (44.2%) of 260 controls demonstrating optimal PGI-I response (P = 0.92). Among patients with diabetes, no baseline variables were found to predict treatment response, including hemoglobin A1c greater than 7%, diabetes with sequelae, or higher Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Conclusions: In women undergoing PTNS for OAB, the optimal PGI-I response rate is similar in patients with and without diabetes.

经皮胫神经刺激治疗糖尿病和非糖尿病女性膀胱过度活动综合征:一项回顾性队列研究
目的:本研究的主要目的是比较合并和不合并糖尿病的膀胱过度活动(OAB)患者对胫后神经刺激(PTNS)的最佳反应(“非常好”或“非常好”的患者总体印象改善[PGI-I]指数)。次要结局包括糖尿病患者和对照组使用PTNS的纵向数据。方法:我们对在我们三级保健中心完成至少每周10次和1次维持PTNS治疗OAB的女性进行了回顾性队列分析,排除了因非OAB原发诊断而接受PTNS治疗的患者。参与者被分为糖尿病患者和非糖尿病患者两组。先前的研究表明,糖尿病患者与非糖尿病OAB患者对抗胆碱能药物的主观反应有20%的差异。为了证明在80%的功率下,最佳PGI-I的差异为20%,我们的分析需要每组92例患者。结果:我们确定了356例患者:96例糖尿病患者,260例对照组。主要结局无统计学差异,96名糖尿病患者中43名(44.8%)与260名对照者中115名(44.2%)表现出最佳的gi - i反应(P = 0.92)。在糖尿病患者中,没有发现预测治疗反应的基线变量,包括血红蛋白A1c大于7%,糖尿病伴有后遗症,或较高的Charlson合并症指数。结论:在接受PTNS治疗OAB的女性中,有糖尿病和无糖尿病患者的最佳PGI-I缓解率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信