Recommendation ID
Indwelling urinary catheters: catheter selection:- For patients using a long-term indwelling urinary catheter, what is the clinical and cost effectiveness of impregnated versus hydrophilic versus silicone catheters in reducing symptomatic urinary tract infections, encrustations and/or blockages?
Any explanatory notes
(if applicable)
Why this is important:- Long-term indwelling catheters (both urethral and suprapubic) are commonly used in both hospital and community care settings. Long-term catheterisation carries a significant risk of symptomatic urinary tract infection, which can lead to more serious complications. Several different types of impregnated and hydrophilic long-term indwelling catheters on the market claim to be more effective than non-coated catheters, but are also more expensive.
The clinical evidence review for the guideline revealed an absence of evidence for the effectiveness of indwelling catheters over the long term. A comparison of impregnated (for example, with silver), hydrophilic and silicone catheters is needed. The primary outcome measures should be symptomatic urinary tract infections, encrustations, blockages, cost/ resource use and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures should include the mean number
of days the catheter remains in situ (mean dwell time) and patient comfort.

Source guidance details

Comes from guidance
Healthcare-associated infections: prevention and control in primary and community care
Date issued
March 2012

Other details

Is this a recommendation for the use of a technology only in the context of research? No  
Is it a recommendation that suggests collection of data or the establishment of a register?   No