Hydrophilic versus non-hydrophilic catheters for clean intermittent catheterization: a meta-analysis to determine their capacity in reducing urinary tract infections
Introduction Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is associated with an increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTI), urethral trauma, urethral stenosis, hematuria, and pain. The first catheters were developed of polyvinyl carbon (PVC). Several types of catheters have been developed to reduc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of urology 2023-02, Vol.41 (2), p.491-499 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is associated with an increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTI), urethral trauma, urethral stenosis, hematuria, and pain. The first catheters were developed of polyvinyl carbon (PVC). Several types of catheters have been developed to reduce these complications, such as those with hydrophilic coating.
Objective
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of hydrophilic coated catheters compared to uncoated catheters on the rate of UTI in patients using CIC.
Methodology
A systematic literature search was performed in OVID, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or randomized crossover trials comparing UTI and hematuria rates in patients using hydrophilic vs. non-hydrophilic catheters for CIC were identified. The selected trials were evaluated for risk of bias using the “Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).” The results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), under a random-effects model. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 software.
Results
Nine studies with a total of 525 patients in CIC were analyzed. Overall, the use of hydrophilic catheters had a lower risk of UTIs compared to uncoated catheters (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.62–0.97;
I
2
= 37%). Five of the studies include patients > 18 years, showing a reduction of UTIs with the use of hydrophilic catheters (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.74–0.93;
I
2
= 0%). There was no difference in UTI development when comparing single-use uncoated vs hydrophilic catheters. However, heterogeneity was high (RR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.59–1.00;
I
2
= 57%). Regarding hematuria risk reduction, we were unable to identify differences between the use of hydrophilic catheters compared to uncoated catheters (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66–1.60).
Conclusion
We found a risk reduction of UTIs associated with using hydrophilic catheters in adults, with low heterogeneity. Regarding hematuria, significant differences were not proved. We do not find a significant difference in UTI risk reduction in the pediatric population. Urethral trauma presence could not be meta‐analyzed due to a lack of information reported. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1433-8726 0724-4983 1433-8726 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00345-022-04235-5 |