Management of Urinary Retention in Patients with Benign Prostatic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- Karavitakis M Center of Minimal Invasive Urology Athens Medical Center, Athens, Greece.
- Kyriazis I Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
- Omar MI Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
- Gravas S Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
- Cornu JN Department of Urology, Charles-Nicolle University Hospital, Rouen Cedex, France.
- Drake MJ Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK.
- Gacci M Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, and Kidney Transplantation, University of Florence AOUC-Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
- Gratzke C Department of Urology, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany.
- Herrmann TRW Urology Clinic, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland; Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Hanover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
- Madersbacher S Department of Urology, Kaiser-Franz-Josef-Spital, Vienna, Austria.
- Rieken M alta uro AG, Basel, Switzerland, University Basel,Basel, Switzerland.
- Speakman MJ Taunton & Somerset Hospital, Taunton, UK.
- Tikkinen KAO Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
- Yuan Y Division of Gastroenterology & Cochrane UGPD Group, Department of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- Mamoulakis C Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete Medical School, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Electronic address: mamoulak@uoc.gr.
- 2019-02-19
Published in:
- European urology. - 2019
Benign prostatic obstruction
Meta-analysis
Prostate
Randomized controlled trial
Treatment outcome
Urinary retention
Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists
Humans
Male
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Quinazolines
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Tamsulosin
Urinary Catheterization
Urinary Retention
English
CONTEXT
Practice patterns for the management of urinary retention (UR) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO; UR/BPO) vary widely and remain unstandardized.
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments included in the European Association of Urology guidelines on non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Search was conducted up to April 22, 2018, using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies. Methods as detailed in the Cochrane handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Literature search identified 2074 citations. Twenty-one studies were included (qualitative synthesis). The evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments is limited. CoE for most outcomes was low/very low. Only α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) have been evaluated in more than one RCT. Pooled results indicated that α1-blockers provided significantly higher rates of successful trial without catheter compared with placebo [alfuzosin: 322/540 (60%) vs 156/400 (39%) (odds ratio {OR} 2.28, 95% confidence interval {CI} 1.55 to 3.36; participants=940; studies=7; I2=41%; low CoE); tamsulosin: 75/158 (47%) vs 40/139 (29%) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.45; participants=297; studies=3; I2=30%; low CoE)] with rare adverse events. Similar rates were achieved with tamsulosin or alfuzosin [51/87 (59%) vs 45/84 (54%) (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.41; participants=171; studies=2; I2=0%; very low CoE)]. Nonpharmacological treatments have been evaluated in RCTs/prospective comparative studies only sporadically.
CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that usage of α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) may improve resolution of UR/BPO. As most nonpharmacological treatments have not been evaluated in patients with UR/BPO, the evidence is inconclusive about their benefits and harms.
PATIENT SUMMARY
There is some evidence that alfuzosin and tamsulosin may increase the rates of successful trial without catheter, but little or no evidence on various nonpharmacological treatment options for managing patients with urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.
Practice patterns for the management of urinary retention (UR) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO; UR/BPO) vary widely and remain unstandardized.
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments included in the European Association of Urology guidelines on non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Search was conducted up to April 22, 2018, using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies. Methods as detailed in the Cochrane handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Literature search identified 2074 citations. Twenty-one studies were included (qualitative synthesis). The evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments is limited. CoE for most outcomes was low/very low. Only α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) have been evaluated in more than one RCT. Pooled results indicated that α1-blockers provided significantly higher rates of successful trial without catheter compared with placebo [alfuzosin: 322/540 (60%) vs 156/400 (39%) (odds ratio {OR} 2.28, 95% confidence interval {CI} 1.55 to 3.36; participants=940; studies=7; I2=41%; low CoE); tamsulosin: 75/158 (47%) vs 40/139 (29%) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.45; participants=297; studies=3; I2=30%; low CoE)] with rare adverse events. Similar rates were achieved with tamsulosin or alfuzosin [51/87 (59%) vs 45/84 (54%) (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.41; participants=171; studies=2; I2=0%; very low CoE)]. Nonpharmacological treatments have been evaluated in RCTs/prospective comparative studies only sporadically.
CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that usage of α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) may improve resolution of UR/BPO. As most nonpharmacological treatments have not been evaluated in patients with UR/BPO, the evidence is inconclusive about their benefits and harms.
PATIENT SUMMARY
There is some evidence that alfuzosin and tamsulosin may increase the rates of successful trial without catheter, but little or no evidence on various nonpharmacological treatment options for managing patients with urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- green
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.046
- PMID 30773327
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/150502
Statistics
Document views: 28
File downloads:
- fulltext.pdf: 0