Impact of preoperative urodynamics on women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Authors: Glass, Dianne; Lin, Frank C.; Khan, Aqsa A.; Van Kuiken, Michelle; Drain, Alice; Siev, Michael; Peyronett, Benoit; Rosenblum, Nirit; Brucker, Benjamin M.; Nitti, Victor W.
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis Preoperative urodynamic studies (UDS) are frequently performed before pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery to assess urethral and bladder function. The primary goal of this study is to examine how preoperative UDS are utilized and what value these studies have in patient treatment and/or counseling. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent prolapse surgery and had preoperative UDS between June 2010 and February 2015. Indications for UDS were classified into four categories: (1) occult stress urinary incontinence only, (2) overactive bladder symptoms, (3) mixed or insensible urinary incontinence, and (4) voiding symptoms and/or elevated post-void residual. We identified changes in management or counseling that were directly attributable to UDS results prior to surgery. Results Three hundred ninety-two patients underwent urodynamic testing for indications 2-4 above, and 316 met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven percent (180/316) had OAB symptoms (34.4% wet, 65.6% dry), 40.2% (127/316) had mixed incontinence, and 17.1% (54/316) had voiding symptoms and/or elevated PVR. A total of 3.5% (11/316) patients had alteration in their management or counseling based on the results of the UDS; 29.4% (50/170) of the women evaluated for occult SUI alone or with other symptoms demonstrated it and 41 underwent sling placement. Conclusions UDS did not have a significant impact on preoperative management or counseling in POP surgery if demonstration of occult SUI was not the indication for preoperative study in women committed to POP surgery. Major alterations in treatment were rare and occurred mostly in women with stress incontinence that also had concomitant voiding symptoms and/or elevated PVR.
Changes in REVEAL risk score in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension treated with macitentan in clinical practice: results from the PRACMA study
BMC PULMONARY MEDICINE
Authors: Escribano-Subias, Pilar; Lopez, Raquel; Almenar, Luis; Lazaro, Maria; Forn, Ian; Torrent, Anna; Blanco, Isabel; Barbera, Joan Albert
Abstract
Background Macitentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist indicated for the long-term treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). We evaluated the change over time in REVEAL risk score in incident and prevalent patients receiving macitentan for the first time. Methods Retrospective, observational study including adult patients with idiopathic/heritable PAH or PAH associated with connective tissue disorders or congenital heart disease treated with macitentan for >= 6-month follow-up in Spain. The REVEAL risk score and risk strata were computed at the start of macitentan and after >= 6-month in patients with >= 7 out of 12 valid REVEAL components. Results Overall, 81 patients (57 for the REVEAL score) were analysed, 77.8% women. The mean age was 57.2 years and 50.6% of patients had idiopathic/heritable PAH. Prevalent patients were 59.3 and 40.7% were incident. Main therapies for PAH included macitentan monotherapy (42.0%) and macitentan in combination with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (44.4%). With a median time of macitentan treatment of 10.5 months, the mean REVEAL score was 8.7 points at baseline and was 7.2 points after >= 6-month follow-up. The mean change (95% CI) in REVEAL risk score was - 1.4 (- 2.0, - 0.9) points (p < 0.0001), being - 1.8 (- 3.0, - 0.7) points (p = 0.0040) and - 1.2 (- 1.8, - 0.5) points (p = 0.0010), in incident and prevalent patients, respectively. The reduction was also significant by risk stratum (36.8% of patients in the high-very high risk strata at baseline versus 14.0% after >= 6-month, p < 0.05) and therapy group. The REVEAL components that significantly improved were WHO functional class (FC) (63.9% FC III at macitentan initiation and 23.6% after >= 6-month, p < 0.0001), 6-min walk test (mean change: 41.8 m, p < 0.01), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) (mean change of - 157.6 pg/mL and - 530.0 pg/mL, respectively, p < 0.05 both), and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (mean change: - 3.4 WU, p < 0.01). Conclusions In this study, treatment with macitentan improved the REVEAL risk strata and score in both incident and prevalent PAH patients, and in all patients regardless of the therapy strategy. Macitentan significantly improved some of REVEAL components including WHO FC, BNP/NT-proBNP, PVR, and 6-min walk test after at least 6-month follow-up.