MP74-15 COMPARISON OF REMOTE MONITORING (HOME) VERSUS IN OFFICE UROFLOWS IN WOMEN: ACCURACY AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP74-15 COMPARISON OF REMOTE MONITORING (HOME) VERSUS IN OFFICE UROFLOWS IN WOMEN: ACCURACY AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Michael Huaman, Yat Ching Fung, and Jerry Blaivas Michael HuamanMichael Huaman More articles by this author , Yat Ching FungYat Ching Fung More articles by this author , and Jerry BlaivasJerry Blaivas More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003348.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Maximum uroflow (Qmax) is considered to be the gold standard to screen for bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or detrusor underactivity (DU), but little attention has been paid to the accuracy of uroflowmeters. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of two different methods of measuring uroflow (Q). METHODS: This was a retrospective IRB approved, single-center study that compared Q measurements between office and home uroflows. Home Qs utilized a sound based mobile app+; office Qs were obtained by a gravimetric method.++ A database was searched for women who underwent Q on both UFMs as part of their diagnostic evaluation. There were no exclusion criteria. The extracted data is listed in the Table 1. Each UFM generated an automated printout of the Q data. The printout Qmax was compared to corrected Qmax, defined as the highest point of the Q curve that lasted ≥2 S. A 3 mL/S difference between the printout and corrected Qmax was considered clinically relevant. Q’s were excluded if no segment of the curve lasted ≥2 S or the curve did not begin and/or end at zero. RESULTS: (see Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the printout, uncorrected best Qmax overestimated Qmax by 3-4 mL/S and overestimated the Qmax by ≥3 mL/S in 29-86% of women. Further, Q’s and voided volumes were higher in the office than at home. These findings, if corroborated, are highly relevant because those with a falsely elevated Qmax may be excluded from further workup for BOO or DU and those with falsely lower Q’s, recorded in the office, might relegate women to an unnecessary workup. The printout errors could be easily solved by changing the software Qmax criteria. The ability of remote UFMs to record multiple samples appears to allow for more accurate data analysis. +Home Uroflow (ProudP from Soundable Health); ++Office Uroflow (Urocap IV from Laborie Medical Technologies, Inc.). Source of Funding: Institute for Bladder and Prostate Research (IBPR) © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e1076 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michael Huaman More articles by this author Yat Ching Fung More articles by this author Jerry Blaivas More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...