3.8.R4 Recommendation
Intermittent catheterization for urinary retention
- Strength of recommendation:
- Conditional for intervention
- Level of evidence:
- Very low
How the strength and level of evidence are graded
What the strength of a recommendation means
The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects, or vice versa, across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended.
Strong for (↑↑) or against (↓↓) intervention
For patients: Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not.
For clinicians: Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action.
Conditional for (↑) or against (↓) intervention
For patients: The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not.
For clinicians: Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and that you must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values and preferences.
Neither intervention nor comparison (—)
The panel did not recommend for or against the intervention.
Source: GRADE Handbook, section 6.1, Table 6.1 (GRADE uses “weak” and “conditional” interchangeably).
For the rating of the strength of the recommendation, in addition to evidence from studies in FRDA, evidence from like conditions, clinical experience and expert consensus are taken into account when published evidence is not available.
The level of evidence is based on published evidence from studies in FRDA. If there is no published evidence in FRDA, evidence from other like conditions or clinical expertise may have been used to make the recommendation – this is graded as ‘very low’ or in some cases ‘low’ level evidence. See the table below for an explanation of the symbols used to grade recommendations.
| Strength of recommendation | Symbol | Level of evidence | Symbol |
| Strong for intervention | ↑↑ | High | ⨁⨁⨁⨁ |
| Conditional for intervention | ↑ | Moderate | ⨁⨁⨁◯ |
| Neither intervention nor comparison | — | Low | ⨁⨁◯◯ |
| Conditional against intervention | ↓ | Very low | ⨁◯◯◯ |
| Strong against intervention | ↓↓ |
We conditionally recommend individuals with Friedreich ataxia in urinary retention undergo intermittent catheterization prior to insertion of an indwelling catheter, with suitability for catheterization dependent on their neurological abilities.
Question
Should intermittent catheterization versus indwelling catheter be used for people in urinary retention with Friedreich ataxia?
Justification
Clinical experience indicates that individuals with Friedreich ataxia can go into urinary retention and require intervention. However, in the case of recurrent or ongoing retention, intermittent catheterization may be difficult due to concurrent upper limb dysfunction. Furthermore, individuals with Friedreich ataxia may struggle with post-indwelling catheter trial of void due to neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. These issues need to be considered on case by case basis in clinical management.
Subgroup consideration
This recommendation is for individuals with Friedreich ataxia in urinary retention. An assessment of suitability for catheterization based on neurological abilities may be required.
Evidence to recommendation table (PDF)
Part of 3.8 Lower urinary tract and bowel function in Friedreich ataxia
References (18)
1. Lad M, Parkinson MH, Rai M, Pandolfo M, Bogdanova-Mihaylova P, Walsh RA, et al. Urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms in a cohort of patients with Friedreich's ataxia. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):158.
2. Musegante A, Almeda P, Monteiro R, Bassoro U. Urinary symptoms and urodynamics findings in patients with Friedreich's ataxia. International Brazilian Journal of Urology. 2013;39(6):867-74.
3. Delatycki MB, Paris DB, Gardner RJ, Nicholson GA, Nassif N, Storey E, et al. Clinical and genetic study of Friedreich ataxia in an Australian population. Am J Med Genet. 1999;87(2):168-74.
4. Dürr A, Cossee M, Agid Y, Campuzano V, Mignard C, Penet C, et al. Clinical and genetic abnormalities in patients with Friedreich's ataxia. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(16):1169-75.
5. Vezina JG, Bouchard JP, Bouchard R. Urodynamic evaluation of patients with hereditary ataxias. Can J Neurol Sci. 1982;9(2):127-9.
6. Nardulli R, Monitillo V, Losavio E, Fiore P, Nicolardi G, Megna G. Urodynamic evaluation of 12 ataxic subjects: neurophysiopathologic considerations. Funct Neurol. 1992;7(3):223-5.
7. Schulz JB, Boesch S, Burk K, Durr A, Giunti P, Mariotti C, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of Friedreich ataxia: a European perspective. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009;5(4):222-34.
8. Fowler CJ, Panicker JN, Drake M, Harris C, Harrison SC, Kirby M, et al. A UK consensus on the management of the bladder in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80(5):470-7.
9. Coyne KS, Kaplan SA, Chapple CR, Sexton CC, Kopp ZS, Bush EN, et al. Risk factors and comorbid conditions associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: EpiLUTS. BJU Int. 2009;103 Suppl 3:24-32.
10. Hufschmidt A, Shabarin V, Rauer S, Zimmer T. Neurological symptoms accompanying urinary tract infections. Eur Neurol. 2010;63(3):180-3.
11. Low V, Ben-Shlomo Y, Coward E, Fletcher S, Walker R, Clarke CE. Measuring the burden and mortality of hospitalisation in Parkinson's disease: A cross-sectional analysis of the English Hospital Episodes Statistics database 2009-2013. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2015;21(5):449-54.
12. Pannek J, Wollner J. Management of urinary tract infections in patients with neurogenic bladder: challenges and solutions. Res Rep Urol. 2017;9:121-7.
13. Salomon J, Denys P, Merle C, Chartier-Kastler E, Perronne C, Gaillard JL, et al. Prevention of urinary tract infection in spinal cord-injured patients: safety and efficacy of a weekly oral cyclic antibiotic (WOCA) programme with a 2 year follow-up--an observational prospective study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57(4):784-8.
14. Higgins PD, Johanson JF. Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(4):750-9.
15. Perry S, Shaw C, McGrother C, Matthews RJ, Assassa RP, Dallosso H, et al. Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. Gut. 2002;50(4):480-4.
16. Chung EA, Emmanuel AV. Gastrointestinal symptoms related to autonomic dysfunction following spinal cord injury. Prog Brain Res. 2006;152:317-33.
17. Craggs MD, Balasubramaniam AV, Chung EA, Emmanuel AV. Aberrant reflexes and function of the pelvic organs following spinal cord injury in man. Auton Neurosci. 2006;126-127:355-70.
18. Preziosi G, Emmanuel A. Neurogenic bowel dysfunction: pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and treatment. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;3(4):417-23.
Disclaimer, intended use and funding
Disclaimer
The Clinical Management Guidelines for Friedreich ataxia (‘Guidelines’) are protected by copyright owned by the authors who contributed to their development or said authors’ assignees.
These Guidelines are systematically developed evidence statements incorporating data from a comprehensive literature review of the most recent studies available (up to the Guidelines submission date) and reviewed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework © The Grade Working Group.
Guidelines users must seek out the most recent information that might supersede the diagnostic and treatment recommendations contained within these Guidelines and consider local variations in clinical settings, funding and resources that may impact on the implementation of the recommendations set out in these Guidelines.
The authors of these Guidelines disclaim all liability for the accuracy or completeness of the Guidelines, and disclaim all warranties, express or implied to their incorrect use.
Intended Use
These Guidelines are made available as general information only and do not constitute medical advice. These Guidelines are intended to assist qualified healthcare professionals make informed treatment decisions about the care of individuals with Friedreich ataxia. They are not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing issues related to Friedreich ataxia. Rather, they are designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making.
These Guidelines are not intended to replace clinical judgment and other approaches to diagnosing and managing problems associated with Friedreich ataxia which may be appropriate in specific circumstances. Ultimately, healthcare professionals must make their own treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, after consultation with their patients, using their clinical judgment, knowledge and expertise.
Guidelines users must not edit or modify the Guidelines in any way – including removing any branding, acknowledgement, authorship or copyright notice.
Funding
The authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the support of the Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA). The views and opinions expressed in the Guidelines are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FARA.