search
Back to results

Feasibility of Bladder Stimulation in Infants

Primary Purpose

Urinary Tract Infection

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Bladder stimulation
Perineal bag
Sponsored by
Hospital del Río Hortega
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Urinary Tract Infection

Eligibility Criteria

undefined - 12 Months (Child)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • infants up to one-year-old in whom a urine sample by a non-sterile method was requested under physician criteria and a written consent was signed by parents/caregivers.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • patients in whom a urine sample obtained by sterile method was needed by protocol (i.e. febrile infants less than 3 months old)
  • patients with underlying disease unable to oral intake of liquids
  • patients whom parents/caregivers refused to sign the informed consent.

Sites / Locations

    Arms of the Study

    Arm 1

    Arm 2

    Arm Type

    Active Comparator

    Experimental

    Arm Label

    perineal bag

    Bladder stimulation

    Arm Description

    Perineal bag was placed in infants to collect an urine sample.

    Bladder stimulation technique was used in infants of this arm to obtain an urine sample

    Outcomes

    Primary Outcome Measures

    Urine sample collection
    Primary outcome is the obtention of an urine sample within the time determinate for each technique. Bladder stimulation technique is a procedure that lasts 5 minutes (300 seconds). If urine sample was obtained of patients that underwent this technique, it was considered a success. if not, a failure. The same was determined for the perineal bag group. In this case, our hospital's protocol recommends to use a perineal bag no longer than 30 minutes, due to risk of contamination, and after three attempts, to consider other options, so in the patients that a perineal bag was placed, if obtaining a urine sample within 90 min (5400 seconds) was considered a success. Otherwise, it was considered as a failure. For the purpose of the primary objective of the study, rate of falilures of each technique was compared.

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    Full Information

    First Posted
    September 30, 2015
    Last Updated
    October 5, 2015
    Sponsor
    Hospital del Río Hortega
    search

    1. Study Identification

    Unique Protocol Identification Number
    NCT02569944
    Brief Title
    Feasibility of Bladder Stimulation in Infants
    Official Title
    Evaluation of Feasibility of Urine Collection Using Perineal Bag Versus Bladder Stimulation in Infants Less Than 12 Months Old
    Study Type
    Interventional

    2. Study Status

    Record Verification Date
    October 2015
    Overall Recruitment Status
    Completed
    Study Start Date
    June 2013 (undefined)
    Primary Completion Date
    December 2014 (Actual)
    Study Completion Date
    December 2014 (Actual)

    3. Sponsor/Collaborators

    Responsible Party, by Official Title
    Principal Investigator
    Name of the Sponsor
    Hospital del Río Hortega

    4. Oversight

    Data Monitoring Committee
    No

    5. Study Description

    Brief Summary
    Randomize trial by including patients up to 12 months old in whom a urine sample by a non-sterile method was requested under physician criteria. Intention-to-treat analysis was made. Urine dipstick was considered as altered if it was positive in leukoesterase test (≥2+) or nitrite test. In patients with an altered urine dipstick, a sterile sample was obtained for culture. If there was an initial altered urine dipstick with a subsequent negative urine culture it was considered as contaminated urine.
    Detailed Description
    Randomised not-blind trial developed between june 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2014 at the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) of Rio Hortega Universitary Hospital, a secondary hospital located in Valladolid (Spain). Participants were infants up to one-year-old in whom a urine sample by a non-sterile method was requested under physician criteria and a written consent was signed by parents/caregivers. The study obtained the approval of Western Valladolid Review Board. Exclusion criteria: Patients were excluded from the study if they met at least one of the following criteria: a) patients in whom a urine sample obtained by sterile method was needed by protocol (i.e. febrile infants less than 3 months old), b) patients with underlying disease unable to oral intake of liquids, c) patients whom parents/caregivers refused to sign the informed consent. Randomization process: Patients were assigned to one of the 2 groups of treatment (BS vs. PB) following a 1:1 ratio randomization sequence generated by one of the investigators (RV) using Stata® 12. (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas). After being generated, the sequence was introduced in opaque envelopes sequentially numbered. Design of the study When, under physician criteria, it was decided to obtain a urine sample by a non-sterile method and the nurse staff that participates in the study were present at the shift, informed consent was asked to parents/caregivers. Once the consent was signed, the nurse opened the corresponding envelope, and the patient was assigned to one of the groups. For each participant, the nurse that developed the technique filled a spreadsheet with data of the patient. Time was measured by using a stopwatch (the same one for all patients) that was not used for any purpose but the study. Urine sample was sent to the laboratory where one analyst performed the leukocyte-esterase and nitrite test. The analyst has no knowledge about the technique used on each patient and the result of the urine culture was obtained from hospital database. If urine dipstick result was altered, another urine sample was obtained by sterile method, and urine dipstick and culture was done from that sample. Sterile sample was not routinely obtained from patients in whom non-sterile sample dipstick was normal. In those patients who were considered as failure, the decision of obtaining an urine sample by the alternative technique, or by urethral catheterization was up to the physician who was attending the patient.

    6. Conditions and Keywords

    Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
    Urinary Tract Infection

    7. Study Design

    Primary Purpose
    Diagnostic
    Study Phase
    Not Applicable
    Interventional Study Model
    Parallel Assignment
    Masking
    None (Open Label)
    Allocation
    Randomized
    Enrollment
    58 (Actual)

    8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

    Arm Title
    perineal bag
    Arm Type
    Active Comparator
    Arm Description
    Perineal bag was placed in infants to collect an urine sample.
    Arm Title
    Bladder stimulation
    Arm Type
    Experimental
    Arm Description
    Bladder stimulation technique was used in infants of this arm to obtain an urine sample
    Intervention Type
    Procedure
    Intervention Name(s)
    Bladder stimulation
    Intervention Description
    Patients included in this arm were stimulated to collect urine with bladder stimulation technique. This technique consists in a tapping movement in the suprapubic area, followed by a circular massage in sacral zone. This sequence lasts one minute and it is repeated five times. No other procedure, drug or device was done/used in this patients.
    Intervention Type
    Procedure
    Intervention Name(s)
    Perineal bag
    Intervention Description
    Patients included in this arm were placed a perineal bag to collect urine sample. No other procedure, drug or device was done/used in this patients.
    Primary Outcome Measure Information:
    Title
    Urine sample collection
    Description
    Primary outcome is the obtention of an urine sample within the time determinate for each technique. Bladder stimulation technique is a procedure that lasts 5 minutes (300 seconds). If urine sample was obtained of patients that underwent this technique, it was considered a success. if not, a failure. The same was determined for the perineal bag group. In this case, our hospital's protocol recommends to use a perineal bag no longer than 30 minutes, due to risk of contamination, and after three attempts, to consider other options, so in the patients that a perineal bag was placed, if obtaining a urine sample within 90 min (5400 seconds) was considered a success. Otherwise, it was considered as a failure. For the purpose of the primary objective of the study, rate of falilures of each technique was compared.
    Time Frame
    5400 seconds

    10. Eligibility

    Sex
    All
    Maximum Age & Unit of Time
    12 Months
    Accepts Healthy Volunteers
    Accepts Healthy Volunteers
    Eligibility Criteria
    Inclusion Criteria: infants up to one-year-old in whom a urine sample by a non-sterile method was requested under physician criteria and a written consent was signed by parents/caregivers. Exclusion Criteria: patients in whom a urine sample obtained by sterile method was needed by protocol (i.e. febrile infants less than 3 months old) patients with underlying disease unable to oral intake of liquids patients whom parents/caregivers refused to sign the informed consent.

    12. IPD Sharing Statement

    Learn more about this trial

    Feasibility of Bladder Stimulation in Infants

    We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs