Intravesical electrical stimulation for underactive bladder: A randomized controlled trial

What is it about?

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel intravesical electrical stimulation (IVES) device for patients with underactive bladder (UAB) in China. The study was a multicentre, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial with 70 patients randomized to receive either conventional IVES or IVES with an open circuit. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in post-void residual urine volume (PVR) after 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary efficacy measures included changes in maximum urinary flow rate (Q max ), bladder voiding efficiency (BVE), number of 24-h clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) procedures, and patient quality of life scores. The results showed that the IVES therapy was relatively safe and effective in reducing PVR, increasing Q max and BVE, and resulting in an acceptable number of adverse events. The study also found that IVES could improve bladder voiding function in UAB patients, but further research is needed to validate its clinical utility.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This research is important because it provides evidence for the efficacy and safety of a novel device for intravesical electrical stimulation (IVES) in patients with underactive bladder (UAB). This study is the first multicentre, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial of IVES with a novel device for UAB patients in China. The results of this clinical study strongly demonstrate that UAB patients benefit from this novel IVES device, and more research is needed to validate the clinical utility of this device. Key Takeaways: 1. The study found that IVES therapy was relatively safe and effective in the treatment of UAB by significantly reducing post-void residual urine volume (PVR), increasing maximum urinary flow rate (Q max), and bladder voiding efficiency (BVE), and resulting in an acceptable number of adverse events (AEs). 2. The study also showed that the PVR of the trial group was significantly lower than that of controls after 4 weeks of treatment, and improvement of BVE in the trial group was also significantly better than that in controls after 4 weeks of treatment. 3. The study suggests that more research is needed to validate the clinical utility of this device, and the sample size should be expanded after its launch, and conduct a prospective, multicentre, long-term, and comprehensive efficacy evaluation.