Long-term bladder management by intermittent catheterisation in adults and children.

BACKGROUND Intermittent catheterisation (IC) is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying not satisfactorily managed by other methods. The most frequent complication of IC is urinary tract infection (UTI). It is unclear which catheter types, techniques or strategies, affect the incidence of UTI. There is wide variation in practice and important cost implications for using different catheters, techniques or strategies. OBJECTIVES To compare sterile versus clean catheterisation technique, coated (pre-lubricated) versus uncoated (separate lubricant) catheters, single (sterile) or multiple use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation versus catheterisation by others, and any other strategies designed to reduce UTIs in respect of incidence of symptomatic UTI, haematuria, other infections and user preference, in adults and children using intermittent catheterisation for incomplete bladder emptying. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 19 June 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2007), EMBASE (January 1988 to June 2007), CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2007), ERIC (January 1984 to June 2007), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials comparing at least two different catheterisation techniques, strategies or catheter types. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three reviewers assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. For dichotomous variables, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome where possible. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for each outcome. Because of trial heterogeneity, data were not combined to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. MAIN RESULTS Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria; all were small (less than 60 participants). There was considerable variation in length of follow-up and definitions of UTI. Participant drop-out was a problem for several studies. Several studies were more than ten years old and outcome measures varied between studies. Where there were data, confidence intervals around estimates were wide and hence clinically important differences in UTI and other outcomes could neither be identified nor ruled out reliably. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Intermittent catheterisation is a critical aspect of healthcare for individuals with incomplete emptying who are otherwise unable to void adequately to protect bladder and renal health. There is a lack of evidence to state that incidence of UTI is affected by use of sterile or clean technique, coated or uncoated catheters, single (sterile) or multiple use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation or catheterisation by others, or by any other strategy. The current research evidence is weak and design issues are significant. In light of the current climate of infection control and antibiotic resistance, further, well-designed studies are strongly recommended. Based on the current data, it is not possible to state that one catheter type, technique or strategy is better than another.

[1]  A. Cottenden,et al.  Absorbent products for light urinary incontinence in women. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  D. Voaklander,et al.  Itermittent catheterization in the rehabilitation setting: a comparison of clean and sterile technique , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[3]  U. Grigoleit,et al.  Der intermittierende Einmalkatheterismus , 2006, Der Urologe.

[4]  M. Tvede,et al.  Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters. , 2005, European urology.

[5]  Luis García Fernández,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. , 2005, European urology.

[6]  Jennifer Lemke,et al.  Intermittent Catheterization for Patients With a Neurogenic Bladder: Sterile Versus Clean Using Evidence‐based Practice at the Staff Nurse Level , 2005, Journal of nursing care quality.

[7]  R. Murahata,et al.  The ‘no-touch’ method of intermittent urinary catheter insertion: can it reduce the risk of bacteria entering the bladder? , 2005, Spinal Cord.

[8]  A. Kovindha,et al.  Reused silicone catheter for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC): is it safe for spinal cord-injured (SCI) men? , 2004, Spinal Cord.

[9]  L. Strömberg,et al.  Urethral catheterization in spinal surgery: a randomized prospective study , 1993, European Spine Journal.

[10]  F. Maynard,et al.  A prospective randomized trial of the LoFric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[11]  J. Wyndaele Complications of intermittent catheterization: their prevention and treatment , 2002, Spinal Cord.

[12]  C. Cooper,et al.  Variability in catheter microwave sterilization techniques in a single clinic population. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[13]  T. Schlager,et al.  Effect of a single-use sterile catheter for each void on the frequency of bacteriuria in children with neurogenic bladder on intermittent catheterization for bladder emptying. , 2001, Pediatrics.

[14]  G. Scivoletto,et al.  Intermittent catheterization with a prelubricated catheter in spinal cord injured patients: a prospective randomized crossover study. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[15]  G. Pascoe,et al.  Evaluation of two coated catheters in intermittent self-catheterization. , 2001, British journal of nursing.

[16]  P. Klarskov,et al.  Hydrophilic versus non-coated catheters for intermittent catheterization. , 2001, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.

[17]  Pachler,et al.  A comparison of prelubricated hydrophilic and non‐hydrophilic polyvinyl chloride catheters for urethral catheterization , 1999, BJU international.

[18]  K. Banovac,et al.  A study comparing sterile and nonsterile urethral catheterization in patients with spinal cord injury. , 1997, Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses.

[19]  L. Baskin,et al.  Clean intermittent catheterization in boys using the LoFric catheter. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[20]  D. Grundy,et al.  A comparison of two methods of sterile urethral catheterisation in spinal cord injured adults , 1996, Paraplegia.

[21]  M. Kuskowski,et al.  Clean Intermittent Catheterization: Safe, Cost‐Effective Bladder Management for Male Residents of VA Nursing Homes , 1995, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[22]  A. Diokno,et al.  Patient satisfaction and the LoFric catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[23]  R. Charbonneau-Smith No-touch catheterization and infection rates in a select spinal cord injured population. , 1993, Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses.

[24]  K. Moore,et al.  Bacteriuria in intermittent catheterization users: the effect of sterile versus clean reused catheters. , 1993, Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses.

[25]  P. Quigley,et al.  A comparison of open and closed catheterization techniques in rehabilitation patients. , 1993, Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses.

[26]  M. Terpenning,et al.  Intermittent Urethral Catheterization in the Elderly , 1989, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[27]  H. Eckstein,et al.  Intermittent Catheterisation of the Bladder for Neuropathic Incontinence , 1982 .

[28]  J. Nanninga,et al.  Reusable catheter for long-term sterile intermittent catheterization. , 1981, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.