Secondary Bilateral Sacral Nerve Stimulation in Overactive Bladder Patients

NCT ID: NCT01960270

Last Updated: 2020-06-29

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

34 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-11-12

Study Completion Date

2018-05-02

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Unilateral sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has emerged as a valuable treatment for patient with low urinary tract dysfunction when failure or bad tolerance to anticholinergic treatment for overactive bladder. However, in the medium or long term, some patients failed to benefit from unilateral stimulation (unilateral neuromodulation). A contralateral stimulation could be tested then implanted to restore the efficacy. An other option is to perform a bilateral stimulation of the sacral nerves that could lead to a summation effects better than unilateral stimulation. Therefore, if a unilateral sacral nerve stimulation fails, a contralateral or a bilateral test should be considered.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a treatment in non neurogenic (idiopathic) patients with overactivity of the bladder (OAB) symptoms, refractory to conservative treatment. After selection of patients with positive stimulation test (PNE test), the success rate of stimulation implant is approximatively 70% (40 to 80%). Unilateral versus bilateral initial implantation was retrospectively compared by Pham et al. with respectively 58 and 77% success rate. Wound infection and complication rate were similar. However the limitation of bilateral stimulation is an increased cost for the health care system, augmented duration of the procedure, possible morbidity. Therefore initial implantation in the first step of the treatment is unilateral in current practice. However, after a period of time, a secondary failure may happen, either a complete failure with return to initial symptom or a partial failure with a decrease of the efficacy that may impact on quality of life. However, a non clinical evident effect could have a summation effect if a contralateral stimulator was implanted, and possibly better than contralateral alone.

Research have shown in a small study on 15 patients that a selected group of patients appear to benefit from bilateral stimulation test (PNE test) after failure of unilateral S3 stimulation. A successful response was observed in 4/11 (36%) OAB patients. Bilateral stimulation induced a higher clinical response than stimulation of a controlateral lead alone in voiding parameters. In the patients who showed a successful response to PNE test, 3 were implanted bilaterally with more than 50% improvement for 2 of them at one year follow-up, and 41% improvement for the third. No painful stimulation or side effects were reported with chronic bilateral stimulation. In one study, a lead migration was suspected in 3/15 patients and was the cause of failure. Therefore the proposed study will use systematically a tined lead electrode that avoid lead migration.

According to these preliminary data, test stimulation with a contralateral lead might be considered in secondary unsuccessful patient and evaluated. Further investigation is necessary to determine in a larger cohort the result of contralateral alone or bilateral stimulator implantation. There is no established guidelines in secondary unsuccessful patients, therefore contralateral stimulation is used in clinical practice according to patient and practitioner opinion. This protocol is presented as a standard clinical practice evaluation.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Bladder Hyperactivity

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

CROSSOVER

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Alone controlateral stimulation

Device: INTERSTIM II

* Stimulator II activated
* Stimulator I not activated
* Measure of efficacy on bladder hyperactivity

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Device: INTERSTIM II

Intervention Type DEVICE

A second stimulator is implanted on controlateral site

2 sides-stimulation

Device: INTERSTIM II

* Stimulator I and II activated
* Measure of efficacy on bladder hyperactivity

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Device: INTERSTIM II

Intervention Type DEVICE

A second stimulator is implanted on controlateral site

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Device: INTERSTIM II

A second stimulator is implanted on controlateral site

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients implanted with Sacral Neuro Modulation for idiopathic OAB with initial efficacy of at least 3 months following by a failure despite optimization of the stimulation (minimum 3)
* OAB evaluated by voiding diary: number of frequency ≥ 8/24 h or urgencies ≥ 3 during 3 days, with or without urge incontinence.
* Age between 18 and 80 years.

Exclusion Criteria

* Psychiatric or neurologic disabilities on neurologic evaluation.
* Bladder lithiasis or tumor (cystoscopy or ultrasonography).
* Treatment by drugs that could interfere with the OAB syndromes.
* Pelvic floor exercises should have been interrupted 1 month before.
* No planned surgery on bladder or urinary neurologic tract.
* Diuresis \> 3 liters per 24 hours.
* Negative test at the end of screening period.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University Hospital, Rouen

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Philippe GRISE, Pr

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

UH Rouen

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

UH Caen

Caen, , France

Site Status

UH Grenoble

Grenoble, , France

Site Status

GHICL Lille Saint Philibert

Lille, , France

Site Status

Lille University Hospital

Lille, , France

Site Status

Hospices civiles de Lyon

Lyon, , France

Site Status

AP-HM

Marseille, , France

Site Status

UH Nantes

Nantes, , France

Site Status

UH Nîmes

Nîmes, , France

Site Status

AP-HP Pitié Salpetrière

Paris, , France

Site Status

AP-HP Tenon

Paris, , France

Site Status

UH Rouen

Rouen, , France

Site Status

UH Toulouse

Toulouse, , France

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

France

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

van Kerrebroeck PE, van Voskuilen AC, Heesakkers JP, Lycklama a Nijholt AA, Siegel S, Jonas U, Fowler CJ, Fall M, Gajewski JB, Hassouna MM, Cappellano F, Elhilali MM, Milam DF, Das AK, Dijkema HE, van den Hombergh U. Results of sacral neuromodulation therapy for urinary voiding dysfunction: outcomes of a prospective, worldwide clinical study. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2029-34. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.032. Epub 2007 Sep 17.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 17869298 (View on PubMed)

Pham K, Guralnick ML, O'Connor RC. Unilateral versus bilateral stage I neuromodulator lead placement for the treatment of refractory voiding dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(8):779-81. doi: 10.1002/nau.20577.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 18551562 (View on PubMed)

Marcelissen TA, Leong RK, Serroyen J, van Kerrebroeck PE, De Wachter SG. The use of bilateral sacral nerve stimulation in patients with loss of unilateral treatment efficacy. J Urol. 2011 Mar;185(3):976-80. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.065. Epub 2011 Jan 19.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 21247601 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

2013/003/HP

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.