Cargando…

Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Lois H, Watkins, Caroline L, Sutton, Christopher J, Forshaw, Denise, Leathley, Michael J, French, Beverley, Burton, Christopher R, Cheater, Francine, Roe, Brenda, Britt, David, Booth, Joanne, McColl, Elaine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4307223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-509
_version_ 1782354423557652480
author Thomas, Lois H
Watkins, Caroline L
Sutton, Christopher J
Forshaw, Denise
Leathley, Michael J
French, Beverley
Burton, Christopher R
Cheater, Francine
Roe, Brenda
Britt, David
Booth, Joanne
McColl, Elaine
author_facet Thomas, Lois H
Watkins, Caroline L
Sutton, Christopher J
Forshaw, Denise
Leathley, Michael J
French, Beverley
Burton, Christopher R
Cheater, Francine
Roe, Brenda
Britt, David
Booth, Joanne
McColl, Elaine
author_sort Thomas, Lois H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated with stroke patients. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of a systematic voiding programme (SVP) for the management of UI after stroke. Stroke services were randomised to receive SVP (n = 4), SVP plus supported implementation (SVP+, n = 4), or usual care (UC, n = 4). Feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention. The main effectiveness outcome was presence or absence of UI at six and 12 weeks post-stroke. Additional effectiveness outcomes included were the effect of the intervention on different types of UI, continence status at discharge, UI severity, functional ability, quality of life, and death. RESULTS: It was possible to recruit patients (413; 164 SVP, 125 SVP+, and 124 UC) and participant retention was acceptable (85% and 88% at six and 12 weeks, respectively). There was no suggestion of a beneficial effect on the main outcome at six (SVP versus UC: odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.94; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.37) or 12 weeks (SVP versus UC: OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.93; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.09). No secondary outcomes showed a strong suggestion of clinically meaningful improvement in SVP and/or SVP+ arms relative to UC at six or 12 weeks. However, at 12 weeks both intervention arms had higher estimated odds of continence than UC for patients with urge incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: The trial has met feasibility outcomes of participant recruitment and retention. It was not powered to demonstrate effectiveness, but there is some evidence of a potential reduction in the odds of specific types of incontinence. A full trial should now be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN08609907, date of registration: 7 July 2010. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-509) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4307223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43072232015-01-28 Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial Thomas, Lois H Watkins, Caroline L Sutton, Christopher J Forshaw, Denise Leathley, Michael J French, Beverley Burton, Christopher R Cheater, Francine Roe, Brenda Britt, David Booth, Joanne McColl, Elaine Trials Research BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated with stroke patients. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of a systematic voiding programme (SVP) for the management of UI after stroke. Stroke services were randomised to receive SVP (n = 4), SVP plus supported implementation (SVP+, n = 4), or usual care (UC, n = 4). Feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention. The main effectiveness outcome was presence or absence of UI at six and 12 weeks post-stroke. Additional effectiveness outcomes included were the effect of the intervention on different types of UI, continence status at discharge, UI severity, functional ability, quality of life, and death. RESULTS: It was possible to recruit patients (413; 164 SVP, 125 SVP+, and 124 UC) and participant retention was acceptable (85% and 88% at six and 12 weeks, respectively). There was no suggestion of a beneficial effect on the main outcome at six (SVP versus UC: odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.94; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.37) or 12 weeks (SVP versus UC: OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.93; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.09). No secondary outcomes showed a strong suggestion of clinically meaningful improvement in SVP and/or SVP+ arms relative to UC at six or 12 weeks. However, at 12 weeks both intervention arms had higher estimated odds of continence than UC for patients with urge incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: The trial has met feasibility outcomes of participant recruitment and retention. It was not powered to demonstrate effectiveness, but there is some evidence of a potential reduction in the odds of specific types of incontinence. A full trial should now be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN08609907, date of registration: 7 July 2010. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-509) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4307223/ /pubmed/25539714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-509 Text en © Thomas et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Thomas, Lois H
Watkins, Caroline L
Sutton, Christopher J
Forshaw, Denise
Leathley, Michael J
French, Beverley
Burton, Christopher R
Cheater, Francine
Roe, Brenda
Britt, David
Booth, Joanne
McColl, Elaine
Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_full Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_fullStr Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_full_unstemmed Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_short Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_sort identifying continence options after stroke (icons): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4307223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-509
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasloish identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT watkinscarolinel identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT suttonchristopherj identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT forshawdenise identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT leathleymichaelj identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT frenchbeverley identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT burtonchristopherr identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT cheaterfrancine identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT roebrenda identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT brittdavid identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT boothjoanne identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT mccollelaine identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial