Original Article: PDF OnlyPilot Trial of Midstream Urine Collection Device Versus Transurethral Catheter in Women With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Practicality of Use in a Clinical Setting, Patient Preferences, and Comparison of Laboratory FindingsHigh, Rachel DO*; Zhang, Yu MD†; Virani, Shohaib BS‡; Eggleston, Kimberly APRN, FNP-C†; Kuehl, Thomas J. PhD*; Bird, Erin T. MD, MBA†; Danford, Jill M. MD†Author Information From the Departments of *Obstetrics and Gynecology †Urology, Baylor Scott & White Health ‡College of Medicine, Texas A&M Health Sciences Center, Temple, TX. Correspondence: Rachel High, DO. E-mail: [email protected]. R.H. is currently receiving a clinical research grant from the International Urogynecological Association. E.T.B. received royalties from Boston Scientific. Funding for the cost of laboratory specimens and devices was provided by Forte Medical Limited (London, United Kingdom). Forte Medical was not a part of the design of this investigator-initiated study. This study is registered as NCT03729336. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03729336. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery: September 30, 2020 - Volume Publish Ahead of Print - Issue - doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000865 Buy PAP Metrics Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate successful use of a midstream urine collection device in women with lower urinary tract symptoms and to assess specimen contamination. Methods Nonpregnant women 18 years or older without use of antibiotics in the last 4 weeks were recruited. After using the midstream urine collection device to obtain a specimen in a private restroom, a paired specimen was obtained by transurethral catheterization. Patients completed preference questionnaires. Culture organisms and microscopic urinalysis of paired specimens (device vs catheterized) were compared using the McNemar χ2 test. Bivariate analysis was performed. Results Successful use was demonstrated in 54 (77%) of 70. Reasons for failure included inadequate specimen volume and improper device use. Older median age (50 vs 72 years, P = 0.0003) and history of diabetes (7% vs 27%, P = 0.037) were associated with failed use. Organisms were discordant in 21 (41%) of 51 paired urine culture specimens. The device detected 7 (88%) of 8 uropathogens. There were no detectable differences in microscopic urinalysis. Conclusions The midstream urine collection device could increase comfort, and many patients prefer it to transurethral catheterization. With proper patient selection and instructions for use, this device could increase satisfaction. Further studies are needed to assess contamination rates with this device. Copyright © American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.