- 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
- 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
|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|