Advertisement

Comparative effectiveness of interventions for managing postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

  • Min Hur
  • Sun-Kyung Park
  • Hyun-Kyu Yoon
  • Seokha Yoo
  • Hyung-Chul Lee
  • Won Ho KimEmail author
  • Jin-Tae Kim
  • Ja Hyeon Ku
  • Jae-Hyon Bahk
Original Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Although many drugs or interventions have been studied to manage catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD), their comparative effectiveness is unknown. We attempted to assess the comparative effectiveness of the strategies to manage CRBD in patients undergoing urologic surgery including amikacin, solifenacin, darifenacin, butylscopolamine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, glycopyrrolate, ketamine, oxybutynin, resiniferatoxin, tolterodine, tramadol, caudal block, dorsal penile nerve block, lidocaine–prilocaine cream.

Methods

We performed an arm-based network meta-analysis including 29 trials with 2841 participants. Goodness of model fit was evaluated by deviance information criteria (DIC). The incidence of CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 h after surgery and the incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 h after surgery were compared.

Results

Random effect model was selected according to DIC. Most of the drugs significantly decreased the incidence of CRBD except amikacin, tramadol at 0 and 1 h after surgery. Dexmedetomidine, solifenacin, caudal block, dorsal penile nerve block, resiniferatoxin, and gabapentin 1200 mg p.o. significantly decreased the incidence of CRBD at 6 h after surgery (gabapentin 1200: Odds ratio [OR] 0.02; SUCRA 95.6). Dexmedetomidine and tolterodine significantly decreased the incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 h after surgery (tolterodine at 6 h: OR 0.05; SUCRA 73.7).

Conclusions

Gabapentin was ranked best regarding the overall incidence of CRBD, while tolterodine was ranked best in reducing the severity of CRBD. However, a firm conclusion cannot be made from our analysis due to small-study number and heterogeneity regarding study setting and outcome measurement.

Keywords

Catheter-related bladder discomfort Network Meta-analysis Gabapentin Tolterodine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by SNUH Research Fund (no. 2320170030). Study sponsors had no role in study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the paper; and the decision to submit the report for publication.

Funding

This study was supported by SNUH Research Fund (no. 2320170030).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interests.

Supplementary material

540_2018_2597_MOESM1_ESM.tif (4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIF 4144 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM2_ESM.tif (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIF 2269 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM3_ESM.tif (3.4 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIF 3477 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM4_ESM.tif (3.3 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (TIF 3415 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM5_ESM.tif (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (TIF 2788 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM6_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 24 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM7_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (DOCX 14 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM8_ESM.docx (51 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (DOCX 51 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM9_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (DOCX 28 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM10_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (DOCX 29 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM11_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 11 (DOCX 16 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM12_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 12 (DOCX 39 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM13_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 13 (DOCX 15 KB)
540_2018_2597_MOESM14_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 14 (DOCX 19 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal A, Raza M, Singhal V, Dhiraaj S, Kapoor R, Srivastava A, Gupta D, Singh P, Pandey C, Singh U. The efficacy of tolterodine for prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1065–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agarwal A, Dhiraaj S, Singhal V, Kapoor R, Tandon M. Comparison of efficacy of oxybutynin and tolterodine for prevention of catheter related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:377–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryu J, Hwang J, Lee J, Seo J, Park H, Oh A, Jeon Y, Do S. Efficacy of butylscopolamine for the treatment of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:932–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung J, Ha H, Kim D, Joo J, Kim S, Sohn D, Kim S, Seo H. Evaluation of the efficacy of solifenacin for preventing catheter-related bladder discomfort after transurethral resection of bladder tumors in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim H, Lim S, Seo H, Park H. Effect of glycopyrrolate versus atropine coadministered with neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium on postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumor: a prospective randomized study. J Anesth. 2015;29:831–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yun YZ, Mei XJ, Rong Z, Ping DR, Lei L. Dexmedetomidine reduces catheter-related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. P R Health Sci J. 2016;35:191–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Verma R, Agarwal A, Singh PK, Gupta D, Shamim R. Evaluation of efficacy of amikacin for attenuation of catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Anesth Essays Res. 2016;10:613–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwal A, Dhiraaj S, Pawar S, Kapoor R, Gupta D, Singh P. An evaluation of the efficacy of gabapentin for prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Anesth Analg. 2007;105(5):1454–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li J, Yi M, Liao R. Dorsal penile nerve block with ropivacaine-reduced postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort in male patients After emergence of general anesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Medicine. 2016;95(15):e3409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mu L, Geng L, Xu H, Luo M, Geng J, Li L. Lidocaine–prilocaine cream reduces catheter-related bladder discomfort in male patients during the general anesthesia recovery period: a prospective, randomized, case–control STROBE study. Medicine. 2017;96(14):e6494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim H, Hong W, Lim Y, Park H. The effect of sevoflurane versus desflurane on postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing transurethral excision of a bladder tumour: a randomized controlled trial. J Can d’anesthesie Can J Anaesth. 2016;63:596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bai Y, Wang X, Li X, Pu C, Yuan H, Tang Y, Li J, Wei Q, Han P. Management of catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients who underwent elective surgery. J Endourol. 2015;29:640–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu B, Li C, Pan M, Zhong M, Cao Y, Zhang N, Yuan H, Duan H. Strategies for the prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baker SG, Kramer BS. The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: if A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, Kibret T, Beyene J. Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages. PLoS One. 2014;9:e115065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hur M, Park SK, Koo CH, Jung ED, Kang P, Kim WH, Kim JT, Jung CW, Bahk JH. Comparative efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip and knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2017;88:634–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim WH, Hur M, Park SK, Jung DE, Kang P, Yoo S, Bahk JH. Pharmacological interventions for protecting renal function after cardiac surgery: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness. Anaesthesia. 2018;73:1019–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim WH, Hur M, Park SK, Yoo S, Lim T, Yoon HK, Kim JT, Bahk JH. Comparison between general, spinal, epidural, and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a network meta-analysis. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2018.09.012.  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kang P, Park SK, Yoo S, Hur M, Kim WH, Kim JT, Bahk JH. Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions to prevent shivering after surgery: a network meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12813-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catala-Lopez F, Gotzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bala I, Bharti N, Chaubey V, Mandal A. Efficacy of gabapentin for prevention of postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Urology. 2012;79:853–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naci H, Dias S, Ades AE. Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins. Bmj. 2014;349:g5741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Owen RK, Tincello DG, Keith RA. Network meta-analysis: development of a three-level hierarchical modeling approach incorporating dose-related constraints. Value Health. 2015;18:116–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:607–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:683–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trinquart L, Chatellier G, Ravaud P. Adjustment for reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1.0). The Cochrane collaboration. 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed Mar 2011.
  30. 30.
    Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA, Kessels AG, Guyatt GH. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. Bmj. 2014;349:g5630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xiaoqiang L, Xuerong Z, Juan L, Mathew BS, Xiaorong Y, Qin W, Lili L, Yingying Z, Jun L. Efficacy of pudendal nerve block for alleviation of catheter-related bladder discomfort in male patients undergoing lower urinary tract surgeries: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tijani KH, Akanmu NO, Olatosi JO, Ojewola RW. Role of tolterodine in the management of postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort: findings in a Nigerian teaching hospital. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017;20:484–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chess-Williams R. Muscarinic receptors of the urinary bladder: detrusor, urothelial and prejunctional. Auton Autacoid Pharmacol. 2002;22:133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yamanishi T, Chapple CR, Chess-Williams R. Which muscarinic receptor is important in the bladder? World J Urol. 2001;19:299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hegde SS. Muscarinic receptors in the bladder: from basic research to therapeutics. Br J Pharmacol. 2006;147(Suppl 2):80–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Srivastava V, Nigam R, Agrawal S, Kumar S, Rambhad S, Kanaskar J. Evaluation of the efficacy of solifenacin and darifenacin for prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:867–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Binhas M, Motamed C, Hawajri N, Yiou R, Marty J. Predictors of catheter-related bladder discomfort in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2011;30:122–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krahn U, Binder H, Konig J. A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of UrologySeoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations