Abstract
Intermittent urinary catheterization (IUC) is one of the recommended methods for bladder emptying in patients with bladder disorders. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has yet evaluated the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in adult neurological patients according to the type of catheter and IUC method.
To address this knowledge gap, a systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials CENTRAL databases, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. We included randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing at least two types of catheters and/or two IUC strategies in adult patients. Only studies published in French or English were considered. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. A random-effects model was applied to estimate the pooled effect size across studies. Publication bias was assessed using the Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index and the Doi plot. All statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 4.3.2 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023481012).
Nine studies were included in the systematic review, of which seven (six randomized controlled trials and one cohort study) were eligible for meta-analysis. The estimated pooled odds ratio based on the random-effects model was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.34-0.84), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 49%). Publication bias was substantial.
These findings suggest that hydrophilic catheters are associated with a lower risk of symptomatic UTI compared with uncoated ones. Further research is needed to evaluate reusable catheter strategies, considering economic and environmental factors.
Keywords: hydrophilic catheter, intermittent catheterization, neurogenic bladder, spinal cord injury, urinary tract infection
Introduction and background
Intermittent urinary catheterization (IUC) is recommended for managing bladder disorders, especially neurological ones [1]. This technique involves briefly inserting a catheter at regular intervals to completely empty the bladder [2]. It ensures clean and complete urination, reducing infections and improving quality of life [3]. Performing IUC requires physical, cognitive, and functional capacities. Self-catheterization occurs when the individual independently performs the procedure, while, in the case of significant impairment, a third party may perform it, known as hetero-catheterization. There are two main types of catheters [4]: uncoated (with or without pre-lubricated systems) and coated (hydrophilic or non-hydrophilic). They can be made from clear plastic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or PVC-free materials.
IUC can be conducted using three techniques. Firstly, the sterile technique involves sterile gloves, a sterile container, and perineal disinfection with an antiseptic solution. Secondly, the aseptic technique requires a sterile single-use catheter, perineal disinfection with an antiseptic solution, and a no-touch technique avoiding direct manual contact with the catheter. Lastly, the clean technique involves clean hands and a clean container, along with perineal cleaning without an antiseptic solution. Catheters may be used once or reused for multiple subsequent catheterizations. Reused catheters can be cleaned with soap and water, soaked in a disinfectant solution, boiled, heated in a microwave, and stored for the next use [5]. Practices vary around the world, and there is no clear consensus.
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) pose a significant concern for IUC users, especially neurological patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) [6]. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) defines catheter-associated UTI as the presence of symptoms or signs consistent with a urinary infection, with no identified source of infection, along with ≥10³ colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of ≥1 bacterial species in urine samples obtained from a catheter [7]. Symptoms may include fever, altered mental status, unexplained fatigue or lethargy, flank pain, acute hematuria, pelvic discomfort, dysuria, urgency, or frequent, painful, or sensitive suprapubic pain, especially in individuals who have had their catheter removed. For persons with SCI, the UTI definition also considers worsening spasticity, autonomic dysreflexia (sweating, bradycardia, increased blood pressure), or general malaise.
Despite scientific advances in catheter design and materials, there is no unanimous consensus regarding IUC practices. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine data regarding UTIs in adult neurogenic patients undergoing IUC, based on catheter type and catheterization technique.
Review
Methods
Review Design and Registration
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [8]. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42023481012.
Search Strategy
A systematic literature search was performed in January 2023 using PubMed, the Excerpta Medica database (Embase), and the Cochrane CENTRAL trials. The search formula incorporated keywords combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: IUC, UTI, and neurogenic urinary disorders (Table 1).
Table 1. Search strategy.
| Terms | |
| 1 | (intermittent catheterization) OR (intermittent urinary catheterization) |
| 2 | (urinary tract infection) OR (urinary infection) OR (symptomatic urinary infection) |
| Population (P) | Neurologic adult patients with neurogenic urinary disorders |
| Intervention (I) | Intermittent catheterization |
| Comparison (C) | Type of catheter and/or technique of catheterization |
| Outcomes (O) | Urinary tract infection |
Study Selection
Randomized clinical trials, as well as retrospective and prospective cohort studies, were included if they compared at least two types of catheters and/or two techniques of IUC in adult patients with neurogenic bladder. Participants included adults requiring IUC for neurogenic bladder management.
Selection Criteria
Inclusion criteria were articles published after 2000, up to January 2023, available in full text in French or English, involving neurogenic bladder disorders requiring IUC, and comparing at least two types of catheters and/or two techniques of IUC.
Exclusion criteria included letters to the editor, case reports, posters, recommendations from societies and experts, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, studies involving antiseptic or antibiotic prophylaxis, and studies on the pediatric population.
Outcome
The outcome analyzed was symptomatic UTI. Other outcomes, such as hematuria, patient satisfaction, preferences, quality of life, and economic outcomes, were not analyzed.
Data Extraction
Data collection followed PRISMA recommendations. Two authors (SS and SK) independently identified eligible papers based on title and abstract, and any disagreements were resolved by a third author (IH). Extracted data were entered into a pre-set table, and the manuscript was written according to PRISMA guidelines [8].
Risk of Bias Assessment
For randomized controlled trials, the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2) was employed [9]. For cohort studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used [10].
Statistical Analysis
The analysis focused on research methodology, study population, catheter type, technique, UTI definition, and authors' conclusions. The odds ratio was the outcome measure. Statistical heterogeneity among included studies was estimated using I² (I² > 50% indicates significant heterogeneity). Due to expected heterogeneity, a random-effects model was adopted. Doi plots were used to assess publication bias based on the number of studies included in the meta-analysis, with Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index values outside the range of -1 to +1 indicating asymmetry and, therefore, significant publication bias [11]. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 4.3.2 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [12].
Results
Study Selection
The electronic searches identified 1,134 articles, resulting in 855 articles after duplicate removal. Subsequently, 804 articles were screened through title and abstract review based on predefined criteria. Of these, 17 of the 51 studies were eligible for full-text screening, and nine studies were ultimately included in the narrative review. The reasons for exclusion are detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
For the meta-analysis, seven studies were included, while Spinu et al. (2012) [13] was excluded due to missing UTI data in each group, and Moore et al. (2006) [14] was excluded as it focused solely on the IUC technique. The flow of literature through the review process is illustrated in Figure 1 [8,15].
Study Characteristics
Sample sizes varied, with a median of 50 (36-123). Seven studies involved patients with SCI. Chartier-Kastler et al. (2022) [16] included people with neurogenic bladder without a specified etiology, and in Vapnek et al. (2003) [17], 56 individuals had SCI, while five had an unspecified neurogenic disorder. Age ranged from 22 to 75 years, with gender distribution varying across studies, predominantly including men. There was diversity in the duration of disease and IUC, as summarized in Appendices 1 and 2.
Risk of Bias Assessment
Randomized controlled trials were evaluated using the RoB2 tool, and cohort studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Consensus findings are presented in Tables 2-3. Most of the included studies used appropriate randomization techniques, but biases in detection and performance were more common. These results suggest that outcomes should be interpreted cautiously. Regarding the cohort studies, they exhibited overall moderate methodological quality, as both studies indicated sufficient representativeness of the exposed group and appropriate measurement of exposure. Nonetheless, constraints concerning the comparability of cohorts decreased confidence in the strength of their results.
Table 2. RoB2 for assessing randomized controlled trials.
| Author | Study type | Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias = self-reported) | Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Other bias |
| Giannantoni et al. (2001) [18] | Randomized crossover study | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Vapnek et al. (2003) [17] | RCT | Some concerns | Low risk | Some concerns | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| De Ridder et al. (2005) [19] | RCT | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Moore et al. (2006) [14] | RCT | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Cardenas and Hoffman (2009) [20] | RCT | Low risk | Some concerns | High risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Sarica et al. (2010) [21] | RCT | Low risk | Some concerns | High risk | Some concerns | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Cardenas et al. (2011) [22] | RCT | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Some concerns | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Table 3. Newcastle-Ottawa for assessing cohort studies.
| Study | Study design | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | ||||||
| Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Was the follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | Quality score | ||
| Spinu et al. (2012) [13] | Cohort study | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | - | 1 | - | 4 |
| Chartier-Kastler et al. (2022) [16] | Cohort study | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Meta-Analysis on UTI and Type of Catheter
Given the limited number of studies comparing catheter insertion techniques, the meta-analysis focused exclusively on catheter types. A total of k = 7 studies were included in the analysis, involving a total sample size of 1,043. Spinu et al. (2012) [13] and Moore et al. (2006) [14] were excluded due to missing data and/or an exclusive focus on the IUC technique, respectively. Due to the limited number of studies, subgroup analysis was not possible.
The odds ratio was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.34-0.83). Analysis of the forest plot revealed heterogeneity among the included studies, with I² = 49%, approaching the threshold of significance (Figure 2). Publication bias, evaluated by the LFK index, was greater than |2|, as shown in the Doi plot (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Forest plot of urinary tract infection according to type of catheter.
Figure 3. Bias of publication assessed with Doi plot.
LFK index, Luis Furuya-Kanamori Index
Discussion
This meta-analysis found that the use of hydrophilic catheters reduces UTI, but the sample size remained limited, studies were at moderate risk of bias, and publication bias was significant.
In terms of the methodology in the selected studies, seven of them were randomized clinical trials [14,17-22], while two were retrospective studies [13,16].
There is heterogeneity in patient characteristics, including age, gender distribution, disease duration, and IUC. This diversity may affect the generalizability of the results and should be considered when interpreting findings. Among the study population, seven studies involved patients with SCI. This focus on SCI reflects the high-risk profile of urinary and renal complications, highlighting the importance of early intervention. Indeed, research was predominantly conducted in hospital and short-term outpatient settings, except for the studies conducted by Spinu et al. (2012) [13] and Chartier-Kastler et al. (2022) [16], which focused on short- to medium-term IUC (within one year).
Regarding comparison based on catheter type: in the comparison of coated non-hydrophilic and uncoated catheters [18], the non-hydrophilic catheter showed superiority, albeit with a small sample size. As for the comparison between hydrophilic and coated non-hydrophilic catheters in Sarica et al. (2010) [21] and Chartier-Kastler et al. (2022) [16], no significant difference was found, although the pre-lubricated catheter demonstrated fewer UTIs. Spinu et al. (2012) [13] reported minimal differences. Finally, coated hydrophilic catheters were superior to uncoated ones in studies by Vapnek et al. (2003) [17], De Ridder et al. (2005) [19], and Cardenas et al. (2011) [22], with Cardenas and Hoffman (2009) [20] revealing no difference in symptomatic UTI numbers. However, the treatment of UTI with antibiotics was significantly reduced in the hydrophilic group.
Regarding IUC techniques, single-use no-touch was found superior to the sterile technique by Giannantoni et al. (2001) [18]. Vapnek et al. (2003) [17] reported no difference in urinary infection rates between single-use and multiple-use catheters, but the reduction was more significant in the single-use (hydrophilic) group. In contrast to hydrophilic catheters, dry catheters can be used multiple times. Moore et al. (2006) [14] revealed that the single-use clean technique resulted in fewer urinary infections compared to the sterile technique.
Several factors are considered when determining the reliability of meta-analysis results. First is the nature of the research. We included clinical trials with varying risk of bias, from low to moderate. The included cohort was of good quality. Second, the effects measured by odds ratios were accurate and had correct confidence intervals. Third, the endpoint definition of symptomatic UTI was clinically and biologically consistent across all studies included in the meta-analysis. However, it is important to note that there was a significant risk of publication bias. Therefore, our meta-analysis shows moderate confidence in the superiority of hydrophilic catheters in reducing UTIs in neurological patients undergoing intermittent catheter therapy.
Regarding catheter insertion technique, results did not support the sterile technique, and multiple use of catheters did not lead to an increase in UTIs. Current clinical trials, including MultiCath ISRCTN42028483 [23] in 520 patients and COMPARE NL8296 [24] in 456 patients, are aiming to evaluate multiple-use versus single-use catheters, with symptomatic UTI as the primary outcome. Notably, cost considerations in two studies indicated that clean catheters were less expensive than sterile ones [14], while hydrophilic and lubricated catheters were more expensive than dry ones [21]. From an ecological and economic perspective, future studies should focus on comparing multiple-use versus single-use catheters, especially in countries where catheters are not reimbursed, and the population has a low economic status.
Conclusions
IUC stands as a recommended technique for ensuring complete and efficient bladder emptying in neurological conditions. Various materials and techniques can be employed. Hydrophilic catheters appear to be associated with a lower risk of symptomatic UTI compared with uncoated ones, although the evidence is limited by a moderate risk of bias and potential publication bias. However, considering economic and environmental issues, forthcoming studies should prioritize the comparison of multiple-use versus single-use clean techniques, ensuring a substantial sample size and a unified definition of UTI.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Table 4. Patients characteristics of studies included.
SCI, Spinal Cord Injury; IC, Intermittent Catheterization
| Author | Setting | Disease | Total, N | Women, N | Men, N | Age | Disease duration | Intermittent catheterization duration |
| Giannantoni et al. (2001) [18] | Hospital | SCI recently injured | 18 | 2 | 16 | 38.2 ± 16.4 | 37.4 days, SD 13.6 | - |
| Vapnek et al. (2003) [17] | Outpatient clinic at 3 institutions | Neurogenic bladder (56 SCI), 5 other neurogenic disorders not specified) | 62 | 0 | 62 | Interv: 39.9 ± 12.9; Comp: 39.6 ± 16 | - | Interven 43.7(1_161); Compar 56(4_228) range |
| De Ridder et al. (2005) [19] | Hospital than discharged (ambulatoire) | SCI injured less than 6 months | 123 | 0 | 123 | Intervent: 37.5 ± 14.6; Comp: 36.7 ±14.6 | Less than 6 months | - |
| Moore et al. (2006) [14] | Hospital rehabilitation units | Cervical SCI recently injured | 36 | 8 | 28 | 40 ± 16.7 | 6.6 weeks, SD 4 | - |
| Cardenas and Hoffman (2009) [20] | Community | SCI | 56 | - | - | Interv 42.3±10.4; Compar 40.1 ±14.8 | Inter 15.2, SD 10.5; Compar 16.1, SD 14.7 | - |
| Sarica et al. (2010) [21] | Hospital and inpatient clinic | SCI | 25 | 37.04 ± 11.86 | ||||
| Cardenas et al. (2011) [22] | Institutional and community multicenter | SCI | 224 | - | - | Inter 37.2 ± 14.4; compar 35.1 ± 13.2 | Interv 32 days (20_47); Comp 29 (16_52) | Comp 5 days (2_7); Interent 5 (2_8) |
| Spinu et al. (2012) [13] | - | SCI | 45 | - | - | Inter 45 ± 13.6; Comp 47 ± 13.1 | Long term | - |
| Chartier-Kastler et al. (2022) [16] | - | Neurological dysfunction leading to IC | 916 | 541 | 375 | 58 ± 17 | At least 1 year | - |
Appendix 2
Table 5. Methodology of included studies.
SCI, Spinal Cord Injury; IC, Intermittent Catheterization; UTI, Urinary Tract Infection; PVC, Polyvinyl Chloride; CFU, Colony-Forming Units; FW, Follow-Up; RBC, Red Blood Cells; WBC, White Blood Cells; HPF, High-Power Field; ATC, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision
| Author | Population | Intervention | Comparison | UTI definition | UTI intervention group, N | UTI comparison group 1, N | p-value | Methods | Other outcomes | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Conclusion |
| Giannantoni et al. (2001) [18] | SCI recently injured | (n = 18) coated prelubricated non-hydrophilic catheter, no-touch technique, single use | (n = 18) uncoated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) catheter, single use | Odorous urine, onset of urinary incontinence, increased spasticity, autonomic dysreflexia, increased sweating, malaise, pyuria, significant bacteruria | 4 (7.4%) | 12 (22.2%) | 0.03 | Initial course was randomized; 7 weeks for each catheter; KT every 5 hours. FW 2, 4, and 7 weeks for each type, so 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14 weeks | Urethral cell count, satisfaction | - | - | Coated prelubrificated non-hydrophilic > coated PVC |
| Vapnek et al. (2003) [17] | 56 SCI, 5 other neurogenic disorders not specified | (n = 31) hydrophilic coated plastic clean technique single use | (n = 31) polyvinyl chloride catheter uncoated multiple use (4 to 5 times) | Bacterial colony count of 100,000 cfu or greater and at least 1 clinical symptom, such as fever, chills, malodorous urine, increased spasticity, or malaise | 4.03 | 4.34 | 0.012 for the intervention group vs p = 0.24 comparison group | Baseline: UTI based on self-reporting, ECBU FW every 3 months for 1 year, nb UTI/mois de KT, study the decrease of UTI rate in each group | Hematuria, pyuria, adverse event | Self-catheterization, male, neurogenic bladder | History of vesicourethral reflux, bladder calculi, unexplained hematuria, prophylactic antibiotics, and incapable of following | Hydrophilic coated clean technique single use > uncoated PVC catheter multiple use (4 to 5 times) |
| De Ridder et al. (2005) [19] | SCI injured less than 6 months ago | (n = 61) Hydrophilic-coated made with polyurethane and a hydrophilic coating made by polyvinyl pyrrolidone single use | (n = 62) uncoated polyvinyl chloride catheter manually lubricated (water-soluble gel) | A clinical infection with symptoms of UTI for which treatment was prescribed | 39 (64%) | 51 (82%) | 0.02 | - | Bleeding episodes, satisfaction, strictures, and the convenience of use | Male >16 years old SCI less than 6 months with neurogenic bladder that needs IC at least 3 times a day | Symptomatic UTI, prophylactic antiseptic or antibiotic treatment, permanent catheter for more than 10 days | Hyrophilic-coated > uncoated PVC catheter |
| Moore et al. (2006) [14] | Cervical SCI was recently injured | (n = 16) single-use clean technique with PVC catheter | (n = 20) single-use sterile technique PVC catheter | ≥105 (CFU)/mL, >10 leukocytes per HPF (pyuria), fever (> 38°C), general malaise, increased spasticity, and/or autonomic dysreflexia characterized by headache, flushing of the face and neck, sweating, an increase in blood pressure, and the presence of usual pathogens. | 6 (16.67%) | 9 (25%) | - | Standardized technique, every 4 to 6 hours, weekly urine specimens, 1-year follow-up (n = 18, 50%) | Time to onset UTI, bacteriuria, adverse effect, cost | Previously healthy adults with stated preinjury normal bladder function and no history of urinary tract infections, required intermittent catheterization by nursing staff every 4-6 hours, speak and read English | Prophylactic antibiotics, self-catheterizing or had a caregiver catheterizing them, developed a symptomatic urinary tract infection, were discharged from the hospital, or requested withdrawal | Clean > sterile |
| Cardenas and Hoffman (2009) [20] | SCI | (n = 22) hydrophilic catheter | (n = 23) uncoated catheter clean technique single use | Significant bacteriuria (105 CFU/mL) plus at least 1 sign or symptom suggestive of UTI | 12 (54%) | 14(61%) | 0.67 | At least 1 episode of UTI, FW 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 months | Symptom qestionnaire | >18 years old SCI 6 months or more ago, self-reported history of 2 or more UTIs during the past year, use of IC with a noncoated catheter and an open system, no plan to change the method of bladder drainage during the study period, naive to hydrophilic catheters | Upper urinary tract abnormalities, renal or bladder calculi | No difference in the number of symptomatic UTIs in the 2 groups; it appears that the mean number of UTIs treated with antibiotics was significantly smaller in the hydrophilic group |
| Sarica et al. (2010) [21] | SCI | Hydrophilic-coated catheter single-use clean technique | Gel-lubricated non-hydrophilic catheter, single-use clean technique | Bacterial colony count of 100,000 cfu or greater and at least 1 clinical symptom, such as fever, chills, malodorous urine, increased spasticity, or malaise | 1 | 4 | >0.05 | 3 different types of catheters, order randomly, each catheter for 6 weeks, FW 6, 12, and 18 weeks | Urethral cytology, urinalysis (red blood cells, white blood cells, pyuria), patient, coast | Male > 18 years old, SCI less than 6 months, self-catheterization 4 to 6 times/day | Clinical urinary tract infection, unexplained hematuria, bladder calculi, urethral stenosis or fibrosis, mentally unstable patient, participation in another clinical trial, prophylactic antiseptic or antibiotic treatment, permanent catheter for more than 10 days | No difference between |
| Cardenas et al. (2011) [22] | SCI | (n = 108) hydrophilic coated catheter sterile single use polyurethane, coating: polyvinyl pyrrolidone | (n = 116) non-coated catheter sterile, single-use PVC | Clinical definition of symptomatic UTI: a) Antibiotic treatment has been prescribed. 2) Strict definition of symptomatic UTI: a) Antibiotic treatment has been prescribed; b) Bacteriuria 102 CFU/mL (in IC specimens); c) At least 1 of 7 UTI symptoms based on consensus guidelines (fever, autonomic dysreflexia [sweating, bradycardia, blood pressure elevation], increased spasticity, discomfort or pain over the kidney or bladder or during micturition, onset and/or increase in incontinence episodes, cloudy urine with increased odor, malaise, lethargy, or sense of unease); d) Dipstick test positive for leukocyte esterase | 21 | 42 | 0.22 in the institutional period vs p = 0.248 full study period | Study period: 6 months, time to onset of first symptomatic UTI, incidence of UTI with a ratio of UTI/months | Microhematuria, satisfaction, safety outcomes = adverse events | SCI less than 3 months before inclusion, neurogenic bladder dysfunction due to the SCI, and IC required at least 3 times a day | Symptoms of UTI, treatment with prophylactic antibiotics, history of unresolved vesico-ureteral reflux and/or urolithiasis, IC for more than 10 days before study inclusion, pregnancy, or plans to become pregnant during the study period | Hydrophilic coated > PVC uncoated |
| Spinu et al. (2012) [13] | SCI | (n = 30) hydrophilic catheter | (n = 15) non-hydrophilic catheter | Urinary questionnaire | - | - | 0.6274 | Number of UTIs | Number of inflammatory episodes at the scortal level/year, number of bleeding episodes, preference, and satisfaction | - | - | Hydrophilic > non-hydrophilic (a slightly lower number of UTI) |
| Chartier-Kastler et al. (2022) [16] | Neurological dysfunction leading to IC | (n = 458) prelubricated catheter | (n = 458) hydrophilic catheter | (1) The prescription of an antibiotic whose sole indication is a UTI (based on the European guidelines) or (2) the prescription of a nonspecific antibiotic (ATC code) with a diagnosis (ICD-10 code) related to a UTI. If two ssUTIs were detected in the same patient within a 4-week period, those were considered to be a single event | 169 | 190 | p = 0.015 | 12 months pre-indexed period, 28 months inclusion, 12 months follow-up, extended 4 months follow-up. Analyze the study group as a whole, and the sub-population | Number of UTIs per patient, duration of use, daily frequency, switch rate | > 18 yr, at least one prescription of a prelubricated or hydrophilic catheter during the inclusion period, a preindex period of at least 1 yr, and data available for the main and extended follow-up periods | The prescription of two or more different types of catheters at the index date, no follow-up data during the follow-up period, and the extended follow-up period. | No difference for patients who experienced at least one UTI during 12 months follow-up, however, considering the continuous use subpopulation, patients with at least 1 UTI were lower in the prelubrificated catheter |
Disclosures
Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:
Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.
Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.
Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Author Contributions
Concept and design: Sara Skalli, Ihssane Hmamouchi, Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni, Samia Karkouri
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Sara Skalli, Ihssane Hmamouchi, Redouane Abouqal
Drafting of the manuscript: Sara Skalli
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sara Skalli, Ihssane Hmamouchi, Redouane Abouqal, Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni, Samia Karkouri
Supervision: Redouane Abouqal, Samia Karkouri
References
- 1.Intermittent catheterization: Clinical practice guidelines from Association Française d'Urologie (AFU), Groupe de Neuro-urologie de Langue Française (GENULF), Société Française de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation (SOFMER) and Société Interdisciplinaire Francophone d'UroDynamique et de Pelvi-Périnéologie (SIFUD-PP) Gamé X, Phé V, Castel-Lacanal E, et al. Prog Urol. 2020;30:232–251. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2020.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.An International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (ANLUTD) Gajewski JB, Schurch B, Hamid R, et al. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:1152–1161. doi: 10.1002/nau.23397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Value of intermittent self-catheterization for urinary retention (Article in French) Raibaut P, Terrier A, Jacq C, Hubeaux K, Sheikh Ismaël S, Amarenco G. Prog En Urol - FMC. 2008;18:29–34. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management (abridged Cochrane review) Prieto JA, Murphy C, Moore KN, Fader MJ. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:648–653. doi: 10.1002/nau.22792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.WITHDRAWN: Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management. Prieto J, Murphy CL, Moore KN, Fader M. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:0. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006008.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Management of urinary tract infection in patients with spinal cord injuries. García Leoni ME, Esclarín De Ruz A. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003;9:780–785. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00643.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:625–663. doi: 10.1086/650482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Syst Rev. 2021;10:89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.RoB 2: A revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. [ Jan; 2024 ]. 2024. https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials. https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials [DOI] [PubMed]
- 10.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. [ Jan; 2024 ]. 2024. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
- 11.A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Furuya-Kanamori L, Barendregt JJ, Doi SA. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018;16:195–203. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.R: The R. The R Project for Statistical Computing. [ Jan; 2024 ]. 2024. https://www.r-project.org/ https://www.r-project.org/
- 13.Intermittent catheterization in the management of post spinal cord injury (SCI) neurogenic bladder using new hydrophilic, with lubrication in close circuit devices--our own preliminary results. Spinu A, Onose G, Daia C, Panţu C, Anghelescu A, Onose L, Mihăescu A. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22574083/ J Med Life. 2012;5:21–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Intermittent catheterization in the rehabilitation setting: a comparison of clean and sterile technique. Moore KN, Burt J, Voaklander DC. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:461–468. doi: 10.1191/0269215506cr975oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.French translation of the PRISMA Reporting Guidelines for writing and reading systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Article in French) Gedda M. Rev Francoph Int Rech Infirm. 2017;3:19–24. [Google Scholar]
- 16.A real-world data analysis of intermittent catheterization, showing the impact of prelubricated versus hydrophilic catheter use on the occurrence of symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infections. Chartier-Kastler E, Chapple C, Schurch B, Saad M. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;38:79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.A prospective randomized trial of the LoFric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. Vapnek JM, Maynard FM, Kim J. J Urol. 2003;169:994–998. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000051160.72187.e9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Intermittent catheterization with a prelubricated catheter in spinal cord injured patients: a prospective randomized crossover study. Giannantoni A, Di Stasi SM, Scivoletto G, Virgili G, Dolci S, Porena M. J Urol. 2001;166:130–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.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. De Ridder DJ, Everaert K, Fernández LG, et al. Eur Urol. 2005;48:991–995. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hydrophilic catheters versus noncoated catheters for reducing the incidence of urinary tract infections: a randomized controlled trial. Cardenas DD, Hoffman JM. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1668–1671. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.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. Sarica S, Akkoc Y, Karapolat H, Aktug H. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20445490/ Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;46:473–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Intermittent catheterization with a hydrophilic-coated catheter delays urinary tract infections in acute spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Cardenas DD, Moore KN, Dannels-McClure A, Scelza WM, Graves DE, Brooks M, Busch AK. PM R. 2011;3:408–417. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Trial to compare mixed-use (multi-use and single-use) intermittent catheter management with single-use management over 12 months (The MultICath Trial): protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Fader M, Macaulay M, Wilson N, et al. BMJ Open. 2024;14:0. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Single use versus reusable catheters in intermittent catheterisation for treatment of urinary retention: a protocol for a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial (COMPaRE) van Doorn T, Berendsen SA, Scheepe JR, Blok BF. BMJ Open. 2022;12:0. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]