Search

ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic value of overnight ambulatory urodynamics (aUDS) and to assess if a urodynamic diagnosis of detrusor overactivity (DO) or nocturnal enuresis resulted in a change in patient management and an improvement in their urinary symptoms. MethodsA retrospective review of 25 consecutive patients (28% male) with a median age of 38 years (range 18 to 86) having overnight aUDS for bothersome urinary symptoms of primarily nocturia and/or nocturnal enuresis following non-diagnostic conventional urodynamics between November 1998 and August 2018. Urinary symptoms were assessed before overnight aUDS and again after urological treatment following any changes in urodynamics diagnosis and treatment. Six patients were excluded as follow-up data were not available. ResultsTwenty-four patients (96%) presented with nocturia and 20 (80%) presented with nocturnal enuresis. DO was demonstrated in 19 (76%) patients (mean pressure 69.1±53.3 cmH2O). UUI was demonstrated in 16 (80%) out of the 20 patients who complained of nocturnal enuresis. Of the 19 patients with follow-up data, following overnight aUDS a change in urodynamic diagnosis was made in 15 patients (79%); 16 patients (84%) also had their clinical diagnosis and subsequent management changed; and 15 patients (79%) reported an improvement in their urinary symptoms following these changes in diagnosis and treatment. There was a significant improvement in ICIQ-OAB (120±44 versus 32±53, P < 0.0001) scores following the changes to clinical management post-overnight aUDS. ConclusionIn our study cohort, change in primary diagnosis following overnight aUDS led to a significant change in treatment care pathway and resulted in significant improvement in urinary symptoms at follow-up.

Objectives: Whilst ambulatory urodynamics (aUDS) may be used as a second-stage test for patients with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) having non-diagnostic conventional urodynamics (UDS), the evidence for their use is limited. We have assessed the diagnostic utility and consequent symptomatic outcome of aUDS in patients with refractory LUTS. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively acquired urodynamics database was made of 84 consecutive patients (23 male) with a median age 50.5 years (range 18 to 79) having aUDS following non-diagnostic or contradictory baseline UDS over a 12-month period. Patient demographics and urodynamic and clinical diagnosis before and after aUDS were recorded. Forty-six patients (55%) had formal urinary symptom assessment recorded before and a minimum of 6 months following aUDS-related change in management. Results: Eighty-two patients (98%) had a urodynamic diagnosis made following aUDS, 57(68%) of whom had detrusor overactivity (DO); the final 2 patients had no abnormalities detected on aUDS. Change in primary UDS diagnosis occurred in 66 patients (79%). Of these 66 patients, 59 (89%) also had their clinical diagnosis changed, and 55 (83%) had their management pathway changed. There was a significant improvement in urinary symptoms 6 months following aUDS. Conclusion: Change in primary diagnosis following aUDS led to a significant change in treatment care pathway and resulted in significant improvement in urinary symptoms