RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Interstitial cystitis (IC)/bladder pain syndrome (BPS) is an unpleasant sensation related to the bladder with lower urinary tract symptoms lasting more than 6 weeks, unrelated to an otherwise identifiable cause. The etiology is likely multifactorial including urothelial abnormalities, neurogenic pain upregulation, and potentially bladder and vaginal microbiome alterations. Despite treatment effectiveness of both bladder instillations and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for this condition, a head-to-head comparison has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of bladder instillations and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection for treatment of IC/BPS. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with O'Leary-Sant (OLS) questionnaire scores of ≥6, meeting clinical criteria for IC/BPS, and desiring procedural management were randomized to bladder instillations or intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection. The primary outcome was the difference in OLS scores at 2 months posttreatment between groups. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of sexual function, physical/mental health status, pain, patient satisfaction, treatment perception, retreatment, and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were analyzed with 22 randomized to bladder instillations and 25 to onabotulinumtoxinA injection. There were no differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between groups. From baseline to 2 months posttreatment, there was a decrease in OLS subscales in all patients (Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index [ICSI] -6.3 (confidence interval [CI] -8.54, -3.95), P<.0001; Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index [ICPI] -5.9 (CI -8.18, -3.57), P<.0001). At 2 months posttreatment, patients in the onabotulinumtoxinA group had significantly lower OLS scores compared to those in the bladder instillation group (ICSI 6.3±4.5 [onabotulinumtoxinA] vs 9.6±4.2 [instillation], P=.008; ICPI 5.9±5.1 [onabotulinumtoxinA] vs 8.3±4.0 [instillation], P=.048). The difference in OLS scores between groups did not persist at 6 to 9 months posttreatment. There were no statistically significant differences between baseline and posttreatment time points for the remaining questionnaires. Eight percent of patients who received onabotulinumtoxinA injection experienced urinary retention requiring self-catheterization. Patients who underwent onabotulinumtoxinA injection were significantly less likely to receive retreatment within 6 to 9 months compared to patients who received bladder instillations (relative risk 13.6; 95% CI, 1.92-96.6; P=.0002). There were no differences between groups regarding patient satisfaction, perception of treatment convenience, or willingness to undergo retreatment. CONCLUSION: Both onabotulinumtoxinA injection and bladder instillations are safe, effective treatments for patients with IC/BPS, with significant clinical improvement demonstrated at 2 months posttreatment. Our findings suggest that intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection is a more effective procedural treatment for this condition than bladder instillation therapy and associated with decreased rates of retreatment.
RESUMEN
Background: Identifying secondary infections in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) presents challenges due to the ECMO circuit's influence on traditional signs of infection. Objectives: This study evaluates procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for secondary infections in patients receiving ECMO with influenza or COVID-19 infection. Design: Single-center retrospective cohort study. Methods: All adult patients receiving veno-venous ECMO with underlying influenza or COVID-19 from November 2017 to October 2021 were included. Patient demographics, time receiving ECMO, culture data, and procalcitonin levels were examined. The first procalcitonin within 3 days of infection was compared to negative workups that were collected at least 10 days from the last positive culture. Furthermore, we compared procalcitonin levels by the type of pathogen and site of infection. Results: In this study, 84 patients with influenza or COVID-19 who received ECMO were included. A total of 276 procalcitonin labs were ordered in this cohort, with 33/92 (36%) of the secondary infections having an associated procalcitonin value. When comparing procalcitonin levels, there was no significant difference between the infection and negative workup groups [1 ng/mL (interquartile ranges, IQR: 0.4-1.2) versus 1.3 (0.5-4.3), p = 0.19]. Using 0.5 ng/mL as the cut-off, the sensitivity of procalcitonin was 67% and the specificity was 30%. In our cohort, the positive predictive value of procalcitonin was 14.5% and the negative predictive value was 84%. There was no difference in procalcitonin by type of organism or site of infection. Procalcitonin levels did not routinely decline even after an infection was identified. Conclusion: While procalcitonin is a proposed potential diagnostic marker for secondary infections in patients receiving ECMO, this single-center study demonstrated low sensitivity and specificity of procalcitonin in identifying secondary infections. Furthermore, there was no association of procalcitonin levels with etiology of infection when one was present. Procalcitonin should be used cautiously in identifying infections in veno-venous ECMO.
BACKGROUND: It is very difficult to determine whether patients receiving ECMO have infections as both vital signs and laboratory markers have not shown good utility. Procalcitonin is a laboratory test sometimes used to identify infections, but its test performance is not known in this population. METHODS: We performed a study of adult patient patients receiving ECMO to determine if there were differences in procalcitonin levels when patients had infections as compared to when they did not have infections. We also looked to see if procalcitonin levels routinely dropped after an infection was diagnosed. RESULTS: Procalcitonin values were no different when patients had an infection as compared to when they did not have an infection. Using standard laboratory cut-offs, the procalcitonin sensitivity was 67%, and specificity was 30%. Procalcitonin levels did not routinely decline even after an infection was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin poorly differentiated patients with infections from those without infections and should be used with caution in patients receiving ECMO.
The utility of procalcitonin for identifying secondary infections in patients with influenza or COVID-19 receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation Aim: To determine if procalcitonin performs well as a diagnostic marker in identifying additional infections in adult patients receiving ECMO with influenza or COVID-19.