Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Urology
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic urinary catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analyses

Authors: Carla Rognoni, Rosanna Tarricone

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Intermittent catheterisation is the method of choice for the management of bladder dysfunctions. Different urinary catheters are available, but there is conflicting evidence on which type of catheter is best. The present study provides an objective evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of different subsets of urinary catheters.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed for published RCTs regarding hydrophilic coated and PVC (standard) catheters for intermittent catheterisation. Separate meta-analyses were conducted to combine data on frequencies of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and haematuria. Two separate analyses were performed, including or excluding reused standard catheters.

Results

Seven studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. The meta-analyses exploring UTI frequencies showed a lower risk ratio associated with hydrophilic catheters in comparison to standard ones (RR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75–0.94; p = 0.003). Results for the “reuse” scenario were consistent with the ones related to “single-use” scenario in terms of frequency of UTIs. The meta-analyses exploring haematuria were not able to demonstrate any statistically significant difference between hydrophilic catheters in comparison to standard ones.

Conclusions

The findings confirm previously reported benefits of hydrophilic catheters but a broader evaluation that takes into account also patient preferences, compliance of therapy, quality of life and costs would be needed to assess the economic sustainability of these advanced devices.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Panicker JN, Fowler CJ, Kessler TM. Lower urinary tract dysfunction in the neurological patient: clinical assessment and management. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(7):720–32.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Tudor KI, Sakakibara R, Panicker JN. Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: evaluation and management. J Neurol. 2016;263(12):2555–2564.
3.
Wöllner J, Hampel C, Kessler TM. Surgery Illustrated–surgical atlas sacral neuromodulation. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):146–59.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stöhrer M, Blok B, Castro-Diaz D, Chartier-Kastler E, Del Popolo G, Kramer G, et al. EAU guidelines on neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Eur Urol. 2009;56(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Drake MJ, Apostolidis A, Cocci A, Emmanuel A, Gajewski JB, Harrison SC, et al. Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: Clinical management recommendations of the Neurologic Incontinence committee of the fifth International Consultation on Incontinence 2013. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(6):657–65.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Vahr S, Cobussen-Boekhorst H, Eikenboom J, Geng V, Holroyd S, Lester M, et al. Catheterisation. Urethral intermittent in adults: dilatation, urethral intermittent in adults. Arnhem: European Association of Urology Nurses (EAUN); 2013. p. 96.
7.
Bjerklund Johansen T, Hultling C, Madersbacher H, Del Popolo G, Amarenco G. LoFric Primo Study Group. A novel product for intermittent catheterisation: its impact on compliance with daily life—international multicentre study. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):213–20.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Newman DK, Willson MM. Review of intermittent catheterization and current best practices. Urol Nurs. 2011;31(1):12–28. 48.PubMed
9.
Bakke A, Digranes A. Bacteriuria in patients treated with clean intermittent catheterization. Scand J Infect Dis. 1991;23(5):577–82.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Turi MH, Hanif S, Fasih Q, Shaikh MA. Proportion of complications in patients practicing clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) vs indwelling catheter. J Pak Med Assoc. 2006;56(9):401–4.PubMed
11.
Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):213–40.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Nicolle LE. Urinary tract infections in patients with spinal injuries. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2014;16(1):390.CrossRefPubMed
13.
McKibben MJ, Seed P, Ross SS, Borawski KM. Urinary Tract Infection and Neurogenic Bladder. Urol Clin North Am. 2015;42(4):527–36.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Ciani O, Grassi D, Tarricone R. An economic perspective on urinary tract infection: the “costs of resignation”. Clin Drug Investig. 2013;33(4):255–61.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bardsley A. Intermittent Self-Catheterisation in women: reducing the risk of UTIs. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(Suppl 18):S20–9.
16.
Heard L, Buhrer R. How do we prevent UTI in people who perform intermittent catheterization? Rehabil Nurs. 2005;30(2):44–5. 61.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Cardenas DD, Hoffman JM. Hydrophilic catheters versus noncoated catheters for reducing the incidence of urinary tract infections: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1668–71.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Cardenas DD, Moore KN, Dannels-McClure A, Scelza WM, Graves DE, Brooks M, Busch AK. Intermittent catheterization with a hydrophilic-coated. catheter delays urinary tract infections in acute spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. PM R. 2011;3(5):408–17.CrossRefPubMed
19.
De Ridder DJ, Everaert K, Fernández LG, Valero JV, Durán AB, Abrisqueta ML, et al. Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic-coated catheters (SpeediCath). reduces the risk of clinical urinary tract infection in spinal cord injured patients: a prospective randomised parallel comparative trial. Eur Urol. 2005;48(6):991–5.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Clark JF, Mealing SJ, Scott DA, Vogel LC, Krassioukov A, Spinelli M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of long-term intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and uncoated catheters. Spinal Cord. 2015;54(1):73–7.
21.
Prieto J, Murphy CL, Moore KN, Fader M. Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:CD006008.
22.
Bermingham SL, Hodgkinson S, Wright S, Hayter E, Spinks J, Pellowe C. Intermittent self catheterisation with hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated catheters: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:e8639.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Li L, Ye W, Ruan H, Yang B, Zhang S, Li L. Impact of hydrophilic catheters on urinary tract infections in people with spinal cord injury: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4):782–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRefPubMed
25.
NIDRR–National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The prevention and management of urinary tract infections among people with spinal cord injuries. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Consensus Statement. January 27–29, 1992. J Am Paraplegia Soc. 1992;15(3):194–204.CrossRef
26.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Wiley. 2009.
27.
28.
CRD. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York CRD; 2009.
29.
Massa LM, Hoffman JM, Cardenas DD. Validity, accuracy, and predictive value of urinary tract infection signs and symptoms in individuals with spinal cord injury on intermittent catheterization. J Spinal Cord Med. 2009;32(5):568–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Sarica S, Akkoc Y, Karapolat H, Aktug H. Comparison of the use of conventional, hydrophilic and gel-lubricated catheters with regard to urethral micro trauma, urinary system infection, . and patient satisfaction in patients with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;46(4):473–9.PubMed
31.
Wyndaele J, De Ridder D, Everaert K, Heilporn A, Congard-Chassol B. Evaluation of the use of Urocath-Gel catheters for intermittent self-catheterization by male patients using conventional catheters for a long time. Spinal Cord. 2000;38(2):97–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Vapnek JM, Maynard FM, Kim J. A prospective randomized trial of the LoFric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. J Urol. 2003;169(3):994–8.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Pachler J, Frimodt-Møller C. A comparison of prelubricated hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic polyvinyl chloride catheters for urethral catheterization. BJU Int. 1999;83(7):767–9.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Sutherland RS, Kogan BA, Baskin LS, Mevorach RA. Clean intermittent catheterization in boys using the LoFric catheter. J Urol. 1996;156(6):2041–3.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Waller L, Telander M, Sullivan L. The importance of osmolality in hydrophilic urethral catheters: a crossover study. Spinal Cord. 1997;35(4):229–33.CrossRefPubMed
36.
von Hippel PT. The heterogeneity statistic I(2) can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:35.CrossRef
37.
Igawa Y, Wyndaele JJ, Nishizawa O. Catheterization: possible complications and their prevention and treatment. Int J Urol. 2008;15(6):481–5.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Bakke A, Digranes A, Høisaeter PA. Physical predictors of infection in patients treated with clean intermittent catheterization: a prospective 7-year study. Br J Urol. 1997;79(1):85–90.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Waller L, Jonsson O, Norlén L, Sullivan L. Clean intermittent catheterization in spinal cord injury patients: long-term followup of a hydrophilic low friction technique. J Urol. 1995;153(2):345–8.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Stensballe J, Looms D, Nielsen PN, Tvede M. Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters. Eur Urol. 2005;48(6):978–83.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Lai KK, Fontecchio SA. Use of silver-hydrogel urinary catheters on the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30(4):221–5.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Karchmer TB, Giannetta ET, Muto CA, Strain BA, Farr BM. A randomized crossover study of silver-coated urinary catheters in hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(21):3294–8.CrossRefPubMed
43.
McNutt R, Johnson TJ, Odwazny R, Remmich Z, Skarupski K, Meurer S, Hohmann S, Harting B. Change in MS-DRG assignment and hospital reimbursement as a result of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid changes in payment for hospital-acquired conditions: is it coding or quality? Qual Manag Health Care. 2010;19(1):17–24.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Saint S. Clinical and economic consequences of nosocomial catheter-related bacteriuria. Am J Infect Control. 2000;28(1):68–75.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Tambyah PA, Knasinski V, Maki DG. The direct costs of nosocomial catheter-associated urinary tract infection in the era of managed care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23(1):27–31.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Anderson DJ, Kirkland KB, Kaye KS, Thacker 2nd PA, Kanafani ZA, Auten G, Sexton DJ. Underresourced hospital infection control and prevention programs: penny wise, pound foolish? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):767–73.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic urinary catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analyses
Authors
Carla Rognoni
Rosanna Tarricone
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-016-0191-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Urology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Case report

Infrarenal high intra-abdominal testis: fusion of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images and pathological findings

Research article

The application of a novel integrated rigid and flexible Nephroscope in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal staghorn stones

Research article

Bilateral benign renal oncocytomas and the role of renal biopsy: single institution review

Study protocol

Study protocol: patient reported outcomes for bladder management strategies in spinal cord injury

Research article

The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) predicts adrenocortical carcinoma and is correlated with the prognosis

Research article

Do men regret prostate biopsy: Results from the PiCTure study