Low-intensity shockwave therapy improves baseline erectile function: a randomized sham-controlled crossover trial.

Background: Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction is emerging as a promising treatment option. Aim: This randomized sham-controlled crossover trial assessed the efficacy of low-intensity shockwave therapy in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Methods: Thirty-three participants with organic erectile dysfunction were enrolled and randomized to shockwave therapy (n = 17) or sham (n = 16). The sham group was allowed to cross over to receive shockwave therapy after 1 month. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were the changes in Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score and Erection Hardness Score at 1 month following shockwave therapy vs sham, and secondary outcomes were erectile function measurements at 1, 3, and 6 months following shockwave therapy. Results: At 1 month, mean SHIM scores were significantly increased in the shockwave therapy arm as compared with the sham arm (+3.0 vs -0.7, P = .024). Participants at 6 months posttreatment (n = 33) showed a mean increase of 5.5 points vs baseline (P < .001), with 20 (54.6%) having an increase ≥5. Of the 25 men with an initial Erection Hardness Score <3, 68% improved to a score ≥3 at 6 months. When compared with baseline, the entire cohort demonstrated significant increases in erectile function outcomes at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Clinical Implications: In this randomized sham-controlled crossover trial, we showed that 54.6% of participants with organic erectile dysfunction met the minimal clinically important difference in SHIM scores after treatment with low-intensity shockwave therapy. Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of this study include a sham-controlled group that crossed over to treatment. Limitations include a modest sample size at a single institution. Conclusions: Low-intensity shockwave therapy improves erectile function in men with erectile dysfunction as compared with sham treatment, which persists even 6 months after treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04434352.

Securing the indwelling catheter.

Each year, millions of Americans are catheterized to ensure adequate bladder drainage. But despite the high rate of catheterization in acute care facilities, clinicians often pay little attention to the decision to insert an indwelling catheter, its optimal management, or especially its timely removal. A physician or NP typically orders the insertion of a urinary catheter, but a nurse often performs the catheterization and is responsible for its management. Reimbursement policy changes recently mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-including one stipulating that Medicare will no longer cover the cost of treating catheter-associated urinary tract infections-have resulted in increased scrutiny of indwelling catheter management. This article explores one aspect of catheter management, the use of securement devices, and analyzes the standard practices, expert opinion, and clinical evidence concerning this intervention.

Gender, race, and culture in research on UI: sensitivity and screening are integral to adequate patient care.

Urinary incontinence is a significant health care problem affecting women and men of all races and cultures. Existing literature provides a limited evidence base with which to influence UI practice. More research is needed to fully understand the influences of gender, race, culture, or ethnicity on the patient's experience of UI and its management. The matter is particularly relevant for nurses who want to understand and help people cope with the adverse physical and psychosocial consequences of this chronic, socially isolating, and potentially devastating disorder.