Delineating patient errors in an intracavernosal injection program
Thiago P Furtado,Patrick E Teloken,Yanira Ortega,Joseph Narus,Natalie P Wolchasty,John P Mulhall
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae031
2024-04-26
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Abstract:Background Intracavernosal injection therapy (ICI) is a well-established therapeutic strategy for men with erectile dysfunction. Complications are often related to patient error when performong ICI. Aim The objective of this study was to examine patient errors in an established patient training program for performing ICI and identify factors that could predict major errors. Methods Patients enrolled in our ICI program are trained on technical aspects, and dose titration is begun. Patients are given explicit instructions during training, both verbally and in written form. Records were reviewed for men using ICI for ≥6 months. Multivariable analysis was used to define predictors of major errors. Outcomes Errors were listed as minor (zero-response injection, penile bruising, expired medication) and major (errors potentially leading to priapism: dose self-titration, double injecting). Results Overall, 1368 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean patient age was 66 ± 22 (range 29-91) years. Regarding education, 41% of patients had graduate-level education, 48% had college education, and 11% high school education. Mean follow-up was 3.2 ± 7.6 (range 0.5-12) years. The agents used were trimix (62%), bimix (35%), papaverine (2%), and prostaglandin E1 monotherapy (1%) At least 1 error occurred during self-administration in 42% of patients during their time in the program. Errors included zero response to medication due to technical error (8% of patients), penile bruising (34%), use of an expired bottle (18%), self-titration (5%), and double injecting (4% of patients); 12% of men committed ≥1 error during their time in the program. On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of the occurrence of a major error included: young age, graduate-level education, and <12 months of injection use. Clinical implications To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported study to investigate ICI errors and risk factors. The identification of factors predictive of major errors allows for more tailored and intensive training in this subset of patients. Strengths and limitations Strengths of this study include a large patient population (1386 men) with a considerable follow-up time. Additionally, the rigorous training, education, and monitoring of the participants, as well as the use of formal definitions, enhances the accuracy and reliability of the results. Despite the strengths of the study, recall bias may be a limitation concern. Conclusion The majority of patients were error free, and the majority of the errors were minor in nature. Major errors occurred in <10% of patients. Younger age, graduate-level education, and less experience with ICI were independent predictors of major errors.
urology & nephrology