Types of indwelling urethral catheters for short‐term catheterisation in hospitalised adults

Thomas BL Lam; Muhammad Imran Omar; Euan Fisher; Katie Gillies; Sara MacLennan

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004013.pub4

Tipos de sondas uretrales permanentes a corto plazo en adultos hospitalizados

Declaraciones de intereses de los autores

Versión publicada: 23 septiembre 2014 Historial de versiones

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004013.pub4

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Resumen

disponible en

Antecedentes

La infección urinaria (IU) es la infección intrahospitalaria más frecuente. La principal causa asociada es el uso de sondas uretrales permanentes. Se han introducido varias medidas para reducir las infecciones urinarias asociadas a la sonda (IUAS). Una de estas medidas es la introducción de sondas uretrales especializadas que han sido diseñadas para reducir el riesgo de infección. Las mismas incluyen sondas recubiertas con antisépticos e impregnadas con antimicrobianos.

Objetivos

El objetivo primario de esta revisión fue comparar la efectividad de diferentes tipos de sondas uretrales permanentes en cuanto a la reducción del riesgo de IU y evaluar su impacto sobre otros resultados en adultos que requieren la colocación de sondas uretrales a corto plazo en el hospital.

Métodos de búsqueda

Se hicieron búsquedas en el registro especializado de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Incontinentcia (Cochrane Incontinence Group), que contiene ensayos identificados a partir del Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP y búsquedas manuales en revistas y actas de congresos (búsqueda 9 de septiembre 2014). También se examinó la bibliografía de los artículos relevantes y se contactó con los representantes de fabricantes de sondas para obtener ensayos.

Criterios de selección

Se incluyeron todos los ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA) y los ensayos controlados cuasialeatorios que comparaban tipos de sondas uretrales permanentes a corto plazo en adultos hospitalizados. “A corto plazo” se define como el cateterismo de una duración menor o igual que 14 días.

Obtención y análisis de los datos

Al menos dos autores de la revisión examinaron los resúmenes, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo de los ensayos incluidos de forma independiente. Cualquier desacuerdo se resolvió mediante discusión o consulta con un tercero. Los datos se procesaron según se describe en el Manual Cochrane para las Revisiones Sistemáticas de Intervenciones (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions). Se evaluó la calidad de la evidencia mediante el enfoque GRADE.

Resultados principales

Veintiséis ensayos, que incluyeron a 12 422 adultos hospitalizados en 25 ensayos de grupos paralelos y 27 878 adultos en un gran ensayo cruzado aleatorio grupal, cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. Ningún ensayo comparó una sonda antiséptica versus otra, ni una sonda antimicrobiana versus otra.

Sondas uretrales permanentes con antisépticos versus sondas uretrales permanentes estándar

El resultado primario, la IUAS sintomática, se informó en un ensayo amplio en riesgo bajo de sesgo, que comparaba la sonda de látex con hidrogel de aleación de plata (con antisépticos) versus una sonda estándar de látex con politetrafluoretileno (PTFE) (control). El ensayo utilizó una definición de IUAS sintomática de los Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) de los EE.UU. Para la comparación entre la sonda recubierta con aleación de plata versus sonda estándar, no hubo diferencias significativas en la incidencia de IUAS sintomática (CR 0,99; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,16).

Para los resultados secundarios, los ensayos incluidos informaron sobre dos tipos de sondas con antisépticos (con óxido de plata o aleación de plata). Para el resultado de la bacteriuria, las sondas de óxido de plata no se asociaron con una reducción estadísticamente significativa (CR 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,72 a 1,13). Dichas sondas ya no se elaboran. Las sondas de aleación de plata lograron una reducción leve aunque estadísticamente significativa de la bacteriuria (CR 0,82; IC del 95%: 0,73 a 0,92). Sin embargo, el único ensayo amplio en riesgo bajo de sesgo no apoyó este hallazgo (CR 0,99; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,16). El ensayo cruzado aleatorio de sondas recubiertas con aleación de plata versus sondas estándar se excluyó de los resultados combinados porque los datos no estuvieron disponibles antes del cruzamiento. Los resultados de este ensayo mostraron menos bacteriuria en el grupo de sonda con aleación de plata.

Para el resultado del malestar mientras la sonda estaba colocada, menos pacientes con sondas con aleación de plata se quejaron de malestar en comparación con las sondas estándar (CR 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,74 a 0,96).

Sondas uretrales permanentes con antibióticos versus sondas uretrales permanentes estándar

La medida de resultado primaria, la IUAS sintomática se informó, en un ensayo amplio en riesgo bajo de sesgo, que comparaba la sonda de silicona impregnada con nitrofurazona (con antimicrobianos) versus una sonda estándar de látex con PTFE (control). La sonda con nitrofurazona logró una reducción en la incidencia de IUAS sintomática que fue de significación estadística dudosa (CR 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,71 a 0,99).

Para los resultados secundarios, los ensayos incluidos informaron sobre dos tipos de sondas con antimicrobianos (impregnadas con nitrofurazona o con minociclina/rifampicina). Se halló que las sondas impregnadas con antimicrobianos, comparadas con las sondas estándar, redujeron la tasa de bacteriuria en el grupo de antimicrobianos tanto para la minociclina como para la rifampicina (CR 0,36; IC del 95%: 0,18 a 0,73), y la nitrofurazona (CR 0,73; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 0,85). La sonda con minociclina y rifampicina ya no se elabora.

Para el resultado del malestar mientras la sonda está colocada, más pacientes con sondas con nitrofurazona se quejaron de dolor mientras la sonda estaba colocada en comparación con las sondas estándar (CR 1,26; IC del 95%: 1,12 a 1,41). Durante el período posterior a la extracción de la sonda, más pacientes con sondas con nitrofurazona se quejaron de dolor en comparación con las sondas estándar (CR 1,43; IC del 95%: 1,30 a 1,57).

Sondas uretrales permanentes con antibióticos versus sondas uretrales permanentes con antisépticos

Un ensayo amplio comparó las sondas impregnadas con antimicrobianos (nitrofurazona) versus sondas recubiertas con aleación de plata (con antisépticos). Los resultados indicaron que los pacientes presentaron menor probabilidad de tener una IUAS sintomática al utilizar sondas impregnadas con nitrofurazona (228/2153; 10,6%) en comparación con las sondas recubiertas con aleación de plata (263/2097; 12,5%), aunque estos datos fueron de significación estadística dudosa (CR 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,71 a 1,00). Sin embargo, presentaron significativamente menos bacteriuria (CR 0,78; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 0,91).

Mientras la sonda estuvo colocada (CR 1,50; IC del 95%: 1,32 a 1,70), y al realizar su extracción (CR 1,32; IC del 95%: 1,20 a 1,45), las sondas con nitrofurazona se asociaron con más malestar en comparación con las sondas recubiertas con plata.

Un tipo de sonda uretral permanente estándar versus otro tipo de sonda uretral permanente estándar

Ninguno de los ensayos que comparó las sondas estándar versus otros tipos de sondas estándar midieron la IUAS sintomática. En cuanto a la reducción de la bacteriuria, los ensayos individuales fueron demasiado pequeños para indicar si un tipo de sonda estándar fue superior a otro tipo. Para el resultado de las reacciones uretrales, las sondas completamente siliconadas parecieron ser superiores a las sondas de látex. Sin embargo, los ensayos incluyeron un número pequeño de participantes. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las dos estrategias para todos los otros resultados.

Conclusiones de los autores

Las sondas recubiertas con aleación de plata no se asociaron con una reducción estadísticamente significativa de la IUAS sintomática y son considerablemente más costosas. Las sondas impregnadas con nitrofurazona redujeron el riesgo de IUAS sintomática y bacteriuria, aunque la magnitud de la reducción fue baja y en consecuencia no puede ser clínicamente importante. Sin embargo, son más costosas que las sondas estándar. También presentan más probabilidades de causar malestar que las sondas estándar.

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Resumen en términos sencillos

disponible en

Tipos de sonda uretral para el tratamiento de los trastornos de la micción a corto plazo en adultos hospitalizados

Antecedentes sobre el trastorno

Las sondas uretrales son tubos pequeños que se insertan en la vejiga a través de la uretra (salida para la orina). A menudo se utilizan durante un periodo corto después de una cirugía mayor. Las sondas uretrales también se utilizan cuando el paciente necesita pero no puede vaciar la vejiga (retención urinaria). También se utilizan para vigilar la producción de orina en los pacientes hospitalizados. Cerca de la mitad de los adultos hospitalizados que tienen sondas urinarias durante más de una semana contraerá una infección urinaria (IU).

Principales hallazgos de la revisión

Se incluyeron 26 ensayos en esta revisión sistemática con 12 422 adultos hospitalizados en 25 ensayos de grupos paralelos, y 27 878 adultos en un gran ensayo cruzado aleatorio grupal. La revisión de las pruebas de los ensayos encontró que aunque las sondas con antisépticos (aleación de plata) redujeron el número de bacterias en la orina, no redujeron el número de IU causadas por la presencia de la sonda. Las sondas recubiertas con antimicrobianos (antibióticos, nitrofurazona) diseñadas para eliminar o detener el crecimiento de las bacterias pueden reducir tanto el número de bacterias en la orina así como el número de pacientes que presentan una IU causada por la presencia de la sonda. Sin embargo, las pruebas son relativamente débiles y es probable que cualquier beneficio sea pequeño, y, en consecuencia, poco significativo para los pacientes o los médicos.

Efectos adversos

Estas sondas con antibióticos también presentan más probabilidades de causar malestar para los pacientes en comparación con las sondas estándar, y son más costosas.

Conclusiones

Los mejores enfoques para reducir el riesgo de IU incluyen la reducción de los números de cateterismos innecesarios o la reducción del período durante el cual se utiliza la sonda mediante su extracción lo antes posible.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

1. Are antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters better than standard indwelling urethral catheters?

The evidence suggests that silver alloy (antiseptic‐coated) catheters do not reduce symptomatic CAUTI, although they appear to reduce bacteruria, in the short‐term catheterised patient. With a few exceptions, the majority of trials dealing with this question were generally of poor quality.

2. Are antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters better than standard indwelling urethral catheters?

The evidence suggests that antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters do reduce symptomatic CAUTI in hospitalised adults catheterised short‐term, although the margin of benefit appears to be small. They also reduce bacteriuria to a significant degree. However, they are associated with greater patient‐reported discomfort. Whilst these catheters may be cost‐effective, it remains unclear if the marginal benefits are clinically important. Some uncertainties also remain over how beneficial the catheters are beyond one week of catheterisation.

3. Are antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters better than antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters?

The data from one well designed study indicated that antimicrobial catheters were more effective in reducing symptomatic CAUTIs than antiseptic‐coated catheters, and in reducing bacteriuria, in hospitalised adults catheterised short‐term. They were also more likely to be more cost‐effective than antiseptic‐coated catheters, although they were associated with more patient‐reported discomfort.

4. Is one type of standard indwelling urethral catheter better than another type of standard indwelling urethral catheter?

No standard catheter was found to be better than another in terms of reducing the risk of bacteriuria in hospitalised adults catheterised short‐term. Siliconised catheters may be less likely to cause urethral side effects in men, but this result should be interpreted with some caution as the trials were small and the outcome definitions and specific catheters compared differed.

5. Is one type of antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheter better than another type of antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheter?

None of the trials included in the review addressed this question.

6. Is one type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter better than another type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter?

None of the trials included in the review addressed this question.

Implications for research

This review found no evidence which supports the use of antiseptic‐coated silver alloy‐coated catheters in reducing symptomatic CAUTI. There was some evidence which suggested that nitrofurazone (antimicrobial‐impregnated) catheters reduced symptomatic CAUTI, but the margin of benefit was small and such catheters were more uncomfortable for patients.

However, the following important questions and issues remain unresolved.

1. Need for standardised definitions for outcome measures in trials assessing CAUTIs

There is a distinct lack of consensus regarding the choice of outcomes which should be measured in trials, how they should be defined, how they should be measured in terms of the most appropriate measurement tools, time point of outcome measurement, and in their reporting. This leads to difficulty in systematically summarising or pooling the results of different trials, and renders the results of different trials incomparable. Another important knowledge gap is the lack of patient‐centred outcomes, such as satisfaction and discomfort/pain, measured in clinical trials. A core outcome set for trials of interventions for reducing symptomatic CAUTI, which encompasses the most important outcomes and which reflect the interests of patients and clinicians, should be developed (Gargon 2014).

2. Valuation of benefit

For the assessment of economic outcomes, there appear to be difficulties in capturing events which accurately reflect the true impact of interventions. For instance, assessment of health‐related QoL impact of experimental interventions, such as urethral catheterisation, which represents only a subsidiary part of overall care of patients undergoing more major intervention (e.g. major surgery), is fraught with difficulties, because any impact of the experimental intervention is likely to be masked by the greater impact of the major intervention. More precise and pragmatic methods of capturing any changes in well‐being specific to the subsidiary intervention, along with the resultant impact on costs, are needed.

3. Further exploration of antimicrobial devices

The exploration of different materials and antimicrobial agents constituting the catheter, or different ways or strategies of inhibiting the formation of catheter biofilms, remains appealing and deserves further research. New catheter materials are being introduced all the time, along with new ways of inhibiting bacterial biofilm formation within the catheter surface, such as the incorporation of drug‐eluting materials.

4. Alternative interventions to reduce CAUTI

Whilst much emphasis has been placed on innovative catheter designs (e.g. coating or impregnation with antiseptic or antimicrobial compounds), more pragmatic and intuitive strategies, based on minimising the incidence of catheterisations, shortening catheter duration, and using alternative techniques (e.g. intermittent self catheterisation catheters), warrant further research.

Summary of findings

Open in table viewer

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Antispetic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ silver alloy versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4241 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high^1,2
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ silver alloy versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4241 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2,3
Bacterial resistance towards antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Urinary sepsis ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ‐ silver oxide versus standard Number with pain with catheter in place	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	34 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2,4,5,6
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ‐ silver alloy versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	3718 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high^1,2,5
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Only one trial. ² Not applicable as there is only one trial. ³ 95% confidence interval is wide (0.83 to 1.42) ⁴ Sequence generation and allocation concealment unclear. ⁵ GRADE‐specific outcome was patient reported discomfort whilst trial reported patient reported pain. ⁶ 95% confidence interval is very wide (0.48 to 4.27)

Open in table viewer

Summary of findings 2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4297 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4297 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Urinary sepsis	Study population		Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment
	See comment	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	3768 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Not applicable because there was only one trial.

Open in table viewer

Summary of findings 3. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ antibiotic versus silver alloy	Study population		RR 0.84 (0.71 to 1)	4250 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	125 per 1000	105 per 1000 (89 to 125)
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ antibiotic versus silver alloy	Study population		RR 0.64 (0.48 to 0.86)	4250 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
	50 per 1000	32 per 1000 (24 to 43)
Urinary sepsis	Study population		Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment
	See comment	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ	Study population		RR 1.5 (1.32 to 1.7)	3708 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
	176 per 1000	264 per 1000 (232 to 299)
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Not applicable because there was only one trial. ² 95% Confidence interval is wide (0.71 to 1.00).

Open in table viewer

Summary of findings 4. One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: one type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Urinary sepsis	Study population		Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment
	See comment	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ Number with burning sensation in urethra ‐ Silicone versus non‐silicone	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	40 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low^1,2,3,4
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Did not specify the method of sequence generation and allocation concealment. ² Only one trial. ³ Burning sensation in urethra is used as a proxy of patient discomfort. ⁴ Only one trial. Funnel plot not applicable.

Background

Description of the condition

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common hospital‐acquired infection, accounting for between 20% and 40% of cases (Emmerson 1996; Haley 1981; Smyth 2008). Up to 80% of these UTIs occurring in hospitals can be attributed to the use of indwelling urethral catheters (Bryan 1984; Smyth 2008; Turck 1981). Catheter‐associated UTIs (CAUTIs) account for significant morbidity, with symptoms such as dysuria, urgency, frequency, haematuria, fever or bladder pain, or more serious complications such as bloodstream infection (Bryan 1984; Krieger 1983). In addition, healthcare costs increase by prolonging hospital stay, and this can adversely affect patients’ health‐related quality of life (Saint 2000; Tambyah 2002).

Urethral catheters are one of the most commonly applied medical devices. The indications for short‐term catheterisation include monitoring of urine output during the perioperative stage or in acutely unwell patients, as part of a urological procedure, or the treatment of patients with acute urinary retention. The prevalence of catheterisation is high, with up to a quarter of patients admitted to hospital requiring urethral catheterisation at some stage during their stay (Gould 2010; Haley 1981; Weinstein 1999). For patients with urethral catheters, there is a cumulative daily risk of 5% of developing bacteriuria (Haley 1981) (i.e. presence of bacteria in the urine), with the risk increasing to 35% and 70%, after 7 and 14 days of indwelling catheterisation, respectively. Whilst bacteriuria does not normally cause symptoms (i.e. asymptomatic bacteriuria), it does increase the risk of developing a symptomatic UTI; it has been estimated that symptomatic UTI occurs in 20% of patients with bacteriuria (Garibaldi 1982; Hartstein 1981). It is also associated with a small risk of bloodstream infection (< 1%) (Bryan 1984; Krieger 1983); whilst this risk is relatively low, bloodstream infection is associated with a high mortality rate of approximately 30%. The presence of bacteriuria in hospital patients with an indwelling catheter is also a potential source of cross‐infection, particularly in critical care units, with an estimated risk per episode of 15% (Johnson 2006). Other factors that increase the risk of infection include female gender, older age, impaired immunity, severity of illness (Stamm 1998), and care process factors, such as lack of antibiotic use, longer duration of catheterisation, catheter insertion or maintenance by poorly trained personnel, and deviation from catheter care protocols (CDC 2009).

In terms of the microbiology of UTIs, infections associated with short‐term catheterisation typically involve a single organism, in contrast with long‐term catheterisation, where polymicrobial infection is frequent (CDC 2009). Although a variety of micro‐organisms may be associated with CAUTI, the commonest pathogens are enteric Gram negative bacilli (Shuman 2010) Escherichia coli (E. Coli) is the most frequently isolated single species, but other species such as Klebsiella spp., Proteus spp. and Enterobacter spp. are also commonly identified. Enterococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and Candida spp. are also important causes of CAUTI, particularly in patients within critical care settings. Forty Staphylococci and other Gram‐negative bacilli are isolated less frequently (CDC 2009).

The criterion for diagnosis of a symptomatic CAUTI varies significantly in the literature. However, efforts have been made by healthcare organisations, such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to standardise definitions, based on different scenarios (e.g. UTI in presence of a urethral catheter, symptomatic UTI, etc.) (CDC 2009). It is worthwhile noting that the CDC’s definitions for UTI have undergone several revisions in the past two decades. In line with CDC definitions, past and present, which reflect clinically relevant outcomes, for purposes of this review, a positive urine culture reported without any consideration for patient symptoms is defined as bacteriuria rather than a UTI.

Several strategies and policies aimed at reducing CAUTI have been introduced. These can be summarised as follows: (1) education of patients, their caregivers and healthcare personnel, in terms of hand hygiene and steps in preventing spread of infection; (2) reduction in the prevalence of catheterisation by assessing the need for catheterisation, and restricting the intervention to those who have no other alternative of achieving bladder drainage; (3) use of aseptic technique for catheter insertion; (4) use of antibiotic prophylaxis in selected high risk groups at insertion based on local antibiotic prescribing policies; (5) maintenance of a sterile, closed drainage system by obtaining urine specimens from the sampling port, positioning of drainage bag above floor level and below bladder level; (6) frequent emptying of drainage bag to maintain urine flow and prevent reflux, and daily washing of urethral meatus; (7) minimising the duration of catheterisation by regularly reviewing the need for catheterisation, and by aiming for early removal of catheter; and (8) coating or impregnation of catheter surface with antiseptic or antimicrobial substances (Brosnahan 2004; Parker 2009; Pratt 2007; Schumm 2008; Willson 2009).

Description of the intervention

Currently, there are many types of catheters available. Standard indwelling catheters are made from a variety of materials including: polyvinyl chlorine, plastic, plain latex, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)‐coated latex, hydrogel‐coated latex, silicone elastomer, pure silicone hydrogel and polymer hydromer (Pomfret 2000; Robinson 2001). Specialised urethral catheters have been developed specifically to reduce the risk of infection. A common approach is to coat the catheter with antiseptic or antimicrobial agents either on the outer surface, the lumen, or both (Saint 1998), or impregnated into the catheter material.

How the intervention might work

Antiseptic agents are substances which kill bacteria and other micro‐organisms. The most common antiseptic agent used is silver. Silver has long been recognised as an antiseptic agent active against a variety of uropathogens through multiple mechanisms of action (Franken 2007). Silver exposure results in limited toxicity to human tissues (Gosheger 2004) and does not appear to induce microbial resistance (Percival 2005). Two types of silver‐based agents have been used to coat urethral catheters: silver alloy and silver oxide (Saint 1998).

Antibiotics are antimicrobial drugs which can either kill bacteria or inhibit their growth to stop or prevent infections. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters have also been developed using various types of antibiotics active against expected uropathogens. These antimicrobial agents are impregnated into the external and internal luminal catheter surfaces, and elute over time into the external surface‐urethral mucosa and internal lumen–urinary boundaries (Guay 2001).

Why it is important to do this review

Several systematic reviews have investigated the effectiveness of antiseptic and antimicrobial catheters in reducing CAUTIs (Drekonja 2008; Johnson 2006; Saint 1998; Schumm 2008), including the previous update of the present review (Shuman 2010). The results of these reviews suggest that silver alloy‐coated catheters and nitrofurazone‐impregnated catheters may reduce the incidence of bacteriuria in hospitalised patients catheterised for less than two weeks in comparison with standard catheters. The magnitude of relative risk reduction varied in each of the analyses due to different inclusion criteria, ranging from 16% to 48%. However, the far majority of included studies in those reviews defined CAUTI based solely on microbiological identification of bacteriuria without any patient‐driven or clinician‐defined contribution to the primary outcomes used. Since the last Cochrane review update, the results of a large RCT which compared silver alloy‐coated and nitrofurazone‐impregnated short‐term urethral catheters versus standard catheters and which assessed clinically relevant outcomes, have been published (Pickard 2012).

The aim of this review was to investigate the effects of these specialised catheters in comparison with standard ones in reducing the incidence of symptomatic CAUTI in hospitalised patients requiring short‐term catheterisation, but also taking into account other factors, such as ease of use, comfort and cost that may influence decision‐making regarding these catheters. For the purpose of this review, short‐term was defined as up to and including 14 days, or other temporary short‐term use as defined by the trialists.

The following are relevant Cochrane reviews that may be of interest to the reader.

Antibiotic policies for short‐term catheter bladder drainage in adults (Niël‐Weise 2005a).
Antibiotic prophylaxis for short‐term catheter bladder drainage in adults (Lusardi 2013).
Short‐term urethral catheter policies following urogenital surgery in adults (Phipps 2006).
Strategies for the removal of short‐term indwelling urethral catheters in adults (Griffiths 2007).
Urethral catheter policies for short‐term bladder drainage in adults (Niël‐Weise 2005b).

Objectives

The primary objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of different types of indwelling urethral catheters in reducing the risk of UTI and to assess their impact on other outcomes in adults who require short‐term urethral catheterisation in hospitals.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

All RCTs and quasi‐RCTs comparing types of indwelling urethral catheters for short‐term catheterisation in hospitalised adults. Short‐term is defined as duration of catheterisation which is intended to be less than or equal to 14 days.

Types of participants

Hospitalised adults (patients admitted to an adult hospital) with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration (less than or equal to 14 days duration, or other temporary short‐term use as defined by the trialists).

Exclusions

Children
Residential care facilities
Adult patients with chronic/long‐term catheterisation for more than 14 days
Patients anticipated as needing a catheter in the long‐term
Patients admitted with an indwelling catheter
Patients with suprapubic urethral catheters
Patients with pre‐existing UTIs

Types of interventions

Different types of indwelling urethral catheters:

antiseptic‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters;
antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters;
standard indwelling urethral catheters (defined as catheters that are not impregnated with antiseptics or antimicrobial)

We wished to make the following comparisons:

1. Antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters;
2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters;
3. Antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters;
4. One type of standard indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of standard indwelling urethral catheter;
5. One type of antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheter;
6. One type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

The primary outcome of interest was the number of people with symptomatic CAUTI.

Secondary outcomes

Microbiological

Bacteriuria (defined by trialists)
Bacterial resistance

Patient‐reported

Patient discomfort
Patient satisfaction

Clinician‐reported

Length of time catheters used

Quality of life

Generic QoL measures (e.g. SF 36, Ware 1992)
Psychological outcome measures (e.g. HADS, Zigmond 1983)

Complications/adverse effects

Septicaemia
Death due to septicaemia
Allergic reactions to catheter materials
Other adverse effects of intervention (as described by trialists)

Co‐interventions

Use of prophylactic antibiotics
Use of rescue antibiotics

Economic outcomes

cost‐effectiveness

Other outcomes

Any other non‐pre‐specified outcomes judged to be important when performing the review.

We classified the primary and secondary outcomes above as critical, important or not important from patients' perspective for decision‐making. The GRADE working group strongly recommends including up to seven critical outcomes in a systematic review to be assessed via the GRADE approach (Guyatt 2011).

We contacted content experts to identify outcomes of importance to patients undergoing short‐term urethral catheterisation that could be included in a Cochrane systematic review. The content experts included clinicians, nurses, and a health economist. Subsequently, through the Urological Cancer Charity (UCAN), we identified five individuals who had undergone urethral catheterisation and invited them to take part in a group discussion to identify important outcomes from their perspective. The participants were not aware of the views of the content experts. On the whole, the participants were in agreement with the content experts regarding the key outcomes of importance. For example, they suggested that infections and discomfort were certainly important from their point of view. However, they also highlighted other outcomes as being meaningful and important such as length of hospital stay and the duration of catheterisation. Interestingly, participants also raised issues around being catheterised and the impact on self esteem and ability to wear clothes comfortably (Omar 2013). We selected the following critical outcomes to assess the quality of evidence in this systematic review, as suggested by patients and content experts.

Symptomatic CAUTI.
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in‐situ.
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent.
Septicaemia.

Search methods for identification of studies

We did not impose any language or other restrictions on any of the searches detailed below.

Electronic searches

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed for the Cochrane Incontinence Group. Relevant trials were identified from the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials. For more details of the search methods used to build the Specialised Register please see the Group's module in The Cochrane Library. The Register contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. Most of the trials in the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register are also contained in CENTRAL. The date of the last search was: 9 September 2014. (Please note: The first version of this review searched the Cochrane Renal Group Specialised Register (searched February 2003)).

The terms used to search the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register are given in Appendix 1.

Searching other resources

We searched the bibliographies of relevant articles. We also contacted catheter manufacturer representatives, however we did not identify any further trials for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Three review authors (TL, MO or EF) independently assessed all titles and abstracts identified by the search. Where there was the possibility that the study might be included, the full paper was obtained. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Another review author was available to resolve any disagreements related to study inclusion. We excluded studies that were not randomised or quasi‐randomised trials comparing types of indwelling urethral catheters in hospitalised adults.

Data extraction and management

One review author extracted trial data using a standardised form and this was independently verified by a second review author. Any disagreement which arose was resolved either by discussion or by arbitration with a third party. Where data in trials were not fully reported, clarification was sought directly from the trialists. We entered the extracted data into Review Manager software (RevMan 2012). We processed all data from included trials according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

At least two review authors (TL, MO and EF) investigated the included trials for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool (Higgins 2011). We assessed a range of specific issues, including:

random sequence generation;
level of concealment of random allocation;
participant/therapist blinding;
outcome assessor blinding;
incomplete outcome data;
selective outcome reporting; and
any other potential sources of bias.

We resolved disagreements which arose either by discussion or by consultation with a third party.

Measures of treatment effect

We processed included trial data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). When appropriate, we undertook meta‐analysis. We categorised comparisons by type of intervention catheter. We performed sensitivity analyses that indicated that the results of silver oxide versus standard catheters and silver alloy versus standard catheters should not be combined. However, we combined data from different types of standard catheters for comparison with antimicrobial‐impregnated and antiseptic‐coated catheters. Where possible, we performed subgroup analyses, comparing outcomes by gender and according to whether the participants were receiving systemic antibiotics.

For categorical outcomes we related the numbers reporting an outcome to the numbers at risk in each group to derive a relative risk. For continuous variables we used means and standard deviations to derive a mean difference (MD). We used a fixed‐effect model to calculate the pooled relative risks, MD and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). However, we also checked results using a random‐effects model. We compared trials to assess and investigate the likelihood of important clinical heterogeneity. Where we observed significant statistical heterogeneity, we offered an explanation in the text. We could not apply publication bias using a funnel plot as there were fewer than 10 trials in the meta‐analysis.

Unit of analysis issues

The primary analysis was per patient randomised.

Dealing with missing data

As far as possible, we analysed data on an intention‐to‐treat basis, meaning that analysis of patients was according to the groups to which they were originally randomised. However, if data were missing, we used the numbers as reported by the trialists. We contacted trialists for missing data or additional information.

If there had been evidence of differential dropout between the groups we would have considered imputing data for the missing results.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We assessed evidence of heterogeneity between trials by visual inspection of forest plots, the Chi² test for heterogeneity and the I² statistic (Higgins 2003; Higgins 2011). Thresholds for interpretation of the I² statistic were defined according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

We regarded statistical heterogeneity as substantial if either the I² was greater than 50%, or there was a low P value (P < 0.10) in the Chi² test for heterogeneity (Higgins 2011). In those outcomes, a random‐effects model would have been used.

Assessment of reporting biases

Owing to the difficulties involved in the detection and correction for publication bias, as well as other reporting biases, we aimed to minimise the potential impact of these biases by ensuring the implementation of a comprehensive search strategy and by being alert to data duplication.

Data synthesis

We only combined data from trials if the trials were clinically similar. We did this by meta‐analysis using a fixed‐effect approach.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We subgrouped data according to the following.

Type of catheter used (e.g. different types of antibiotics used to impregnate antimicrobial catheters).
Duration of catheter use (less than, compared with longer than one week).
Type of participant (diagnosis or condition).
Type of measurement unit for rate of bacteriuria (e.g. per 100 catheters used).

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

We screened a total of 892 records produced by the literature search and retrieved the full‐text of 62 potentially eligible articles. After we assessed the articles, we considered 28 reports of 26 studies to be eligible for inclusion in the review; we excluded 31 reports of 28 studies. Additionally three ongoing studies were identified (NCT00482547 2007; NCT01681511 2012; NCT02198833 2014). The flow of literature through the assessment process is shown in the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Included studies

We included 26 trials involving 12,223 hospitalised adults in 25 parallel group trials (Al Habdan 2003; Chene 1990; Goodwin 1990; Darouiche 1999; Johnson 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Lee 2004; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1997; Maki 1998; Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Pickard 2012; Riley 1995; Stensballe 2007; Stenzelius 2011; Takeuchi 1993; Talja 1990; Thibon 2000; Tidd 1976; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b) ) and 27,878 adults in one large cluster‐randomised cross‐over trial (Karchmer 2000) comparing two types of indwelling urethral catheters.

Of the 26 included trials, three were published in restricted format: one as a letter to the editor (Lundeberg 1986) and two as abstracts from scientific meetings (Maki 1998; Liedberg 1993). We were not able to contact any of these trialists, therefore additional information on the trials came from secondary sources (Niel‐Weise 2002; Saint 1998). Furthermore, one of the trials was an unpublished report (Maki 1997). All other trials were published as full‐text articles.

Participants

Conditions/populations

The trials involved heterogeneous population groups.

Fourteen trials included both women and men catheterised for haemodynamic monitoring or postoperative drainage for a variety of diagnoses (Al Habdan 2003; Chene 1990; Johnson 1990; Karchmer 2000; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Maki 1998; Nickel 1989; Pickard 2012; Riley 1995; Takeuchi 1993; Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b).
Four trials included men with urological diagnoses (Darouiche 1999; Goodwin 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Tidd 1976).
Two other trials involved men only; one involved men postcardiac surgery (Nacey 1984) and the other included men with a variety of medical and surgical diagnoses (Talja 1990).
One trial included men and women undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery (Stenzelius 2011).
One trial included men and women from trauma and surgical wards, and patients with urinary incontinence (Maki 1997).
One trial included men and women from trauma centres only (Stensballe 2007).
One trial included men and women catheterised for more than 24 hours in five university hospitals (Lee 2004).
Two trials did not describe the characteristics of the population (Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986).

Gender

The distribution of men and women was not even between groups in six trials (Lee 2004; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Riley 1995; Stensballe 2007; Verleyen 1999b). In one trial, the intervention group (silver oxide catheter) had nearly twice the number of women than the comparison group (Riley 1995). The Lee trial included fewer women in the treatment group than the control group and more men in the treatment group than the control. One trial only included men after transurethral resection of the prostate or prostate cancer (Goodwin 1990).

Antiobiotic use

Six trials reported the number of participants on systemic antibiotics (Al Habdan 2003; Johnson 1990; Pickard 2012; Riley 1995; Stensballe 2007; Thibon 2000). The numbers were similar across the groups in the trials. Five trials reported on those taking systemic antibiotics prior to catheterisation (Al Habdan 2003; Pickard 2012; Riley 1995; Stensballe 2007; Thibon 2000) and one reported on the number given antibiotics for the final 48 hours of catheterisation (Johnson 1990). One trial (Pickard 2012) reported on the prescription of antibiotics immediately prior to, and during catheterisation, and within six weeks of catheter removal.

No trials included different types of populations, and so we were unable to subgroup the analysis by diagnosis.

Interventions and comparisons

The majority of trials randomised participants to an antiseptic‐coated catheter or a standard catheter. Four different types of antiseptic catheters were investigated:

silver oxide (Johnson 1990; Riley 1995; Takeuchi 1993);
silver alloy (Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998; Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999a);
silver alloy hydrogel (Liedberg 1993; Pickard 2012; Verleyen 1999b); and
noble metal alloy‐coated latex (Stenzelius 2011).

Two different types of antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters were studied:

rifampicin/minocycline combination (Darouiche 1999); and
nitrofurazone (Al Habdan 2003; Lee 2004; Maki 1997; Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007).

The types of standard catheters used were heterogeneous:

hydrogel‐coated latex Foley catheter (Chene 1990; Karchmer 2000; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1993; Talja 1990);
silicone‐coated latex Foley catheter (Al Habdan 2003; Chene 1990; Darouiche 1999; Maki 1997; Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Riley 1995; Stenzelius 2011; Talja 1990; Verleyen 1999a);
fully‐siliconised Foley catheter (Johnson 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Lee 2004; Stensballe 2007; Talja 1990; Thibon 2000);
hydrophilic polymer (Hydron)‐coated latex Foley catheter (Tidd 1976);
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Foley catheter (Tidd 1976);
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) three‐way catheter (Goodwin 1990);
latex Foley catheter (Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Takeuchi 1993; Tidd 1976; Verleyen 1999b);
latex three‐way catheter (Goodwin 1990);
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)‐coated latex Foley catheter (Pickard 2012; Liedberg 1990b); and
unspecified standard Foley catheter (Kalambheti 1965; Liedberg 1990a; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998).

Two trials randomised participants into three arms: Liedberg 1990a compared silver alloy, standard (hydrogel‐coated) and standard (non‐coated unspecified) catheters, whilst Pickard 2012 compared silver alloy hydrogel, nitrofurazone and standard PTFE‐coated latex catheters. Six trials randomised participants to two different types of standard catheters (Chene 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Talja 1990; Tidd 1976).

Types of catheters used are summarised in Table 1.

Open in table viewer

Table 1. Types of catheters

Antiseptic	Antibiotic	Standard
Silver oxide	Silicone impregnated with minocycline and rifampin	Silicone
Silver alloy	Silicone impregnated with nitrofurazone	Latex
Noble metal alloy containing a mixture of gold, palladium and silver alloy		Hydrogel
		Siliconised latex
		Teflonised latex
		Hydrogel‐coated latex
		Hydrophilic polymer‐coated latex
		Polyvinyl chloride
		Polytetrafluoroethylene

Duration of catheterisation

Short‐term is defined as a duration of catheterisation which is intended to be less than 14 days. There was variation in the duration of catheterisation in the trials. The trials described the length of catheterisation in the following ways: total catheterisation time, total mean length of catheterisation for all participants, and mean or median length of catheterisation in the intervention and control groups.

In one trial the participants were catheterised for forty‐eight hours (Nacey 1984).
Another four trials had a total length of catheterisation of five to six days (Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Thibon 2000;Tidd 1976),
Two further trials had a total catheterisation time of fourteen days (Darouiche 1999; Verleyen 1999a).
Five trials recorded the length of catheterisation as total mean duration catheterised for all participants.The mean time catheterised varied from 44.9 hours in one trial (Nickel 1989) and 2.2 days (Maki 1997), three days (Goodwin 1990; Talja 1990) and five days (Verleyen 1999b).
Eight trials described the length of catheterisation as a separate mean for intervention and control groups. One trial reported a mean length of catheterisation of three days in the intervention group and two days in the control group (Stensballe 2007). Another trial reported a mean length of catheterisation of 3.5 days in the intervention group and 3.4 days in the control group (Kalambheti 1965). The mean length of catheterisation in both groups in four of the trials ranged from 3.4 to 4.6 days (Chene 1990; Johnson 1990; Lee 2004; Riley 1995), while one trial had a mean length of catheterisation in the intervention group of 7.7 days and 7.5 in the control group (Takeuchi 1993), and another of 7.9 in the intervention group and 7.2 in the control group (Al Habdan 2003).
Another trial (Pickard 2012) only recruited patients catheterised for up to 14 days, and reported the median duration of catheterisation for each of the three arms, which was balanced across all arms (two days); more than 96% of patients in each arm were catheterised for less than 14 days (balanced across all arms).
Stenzelius 2011 recruited patients who were catheterised during elective orthopaedic surgery, and reported the median duration of catheterisation for the two arms, which was balanced across both arms (two days).

Four trials did not clearly specify the length of catheterisation (Karchmer 2000; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998).

Outcome measures

Primary outcome

The primary outcome measure, i.e. 'symptomatic CAUTI' was either not assessed or poorly defined in the great majority of studies. Very few studies defined symptomatic CAUTI based on standardised definitions. Pickard 2012 defined symptomatic CAUTI based on the development of UTI symptoms and signs, and prescription of antibiotics for a presumed UTI, at any time point during catheterisation, or up to six weeks postcatheter removal. This is a variation of a previous CDC symptomatic CAUTI definition, although the time point of six weeks was longer than any standard definitions. This primary outcome did not include any microbiological evidence of a UTI. However, the same study also included symptomatic CAUTI with microbiological evidence as a secondary outcome measure.

Another trial (Karchmer 2000) defined bacteriuria or symptomatic or non‐symptomatic UTI as ‘≥ 10⁵ cfu/mL’, whilst Thibon 2000 defined UTI as ‘bacteriuria (> 10⁵ cfu/mL) with > 10 leucocytes per mm³ of urine'. Darouiche and colleagues defined 'symptomatic bacteriuria' as being 'diagnosed by the healthcare provider' (Darouiche 1999).

The main outcome measure for most studies was bacteriuria without any consideration of patient symptoms. The exception to this was Stenzelius 2011, which assessed bacteriuria (> 10⁵ cfu/mL) and urinary symptoms during and after the catheterisation period. There was significant heterogeneity in terms of the definition of bacteriuria across trials, ranging from 'greater than 10² colony forming units per mL' to 'greater than 10⁶ colony forming units per mL'.

Secondary outcomes

Adverse effects

In terms of catheter‐related discomfort or symptoms, only five trials investigated this outcome (Nacey 1984; Pickard 2012; Stenzelius 2011; Takeuchi 1993; Talja 1990).

Pickard 2012 measured catheter‐related discomfort at four time points: catheter insertion, whilst the catheter remained in situ, during catheter removal, and within six weeks following catheter removal, using a self administered questionnaire completed by patients.
Nacey 1984 defined urethritis as ‘penile discharge and/or penile discomfort’.
Stenzelius 2011 measured various adverse effects such as pain, burning sensation and difficulty sleeping because of catheter.
Talja 1990 used measurement via scanning electron microscopic analysis to indicate urethral inflammatory reaction.
Takeuchi 1993 also measured catheter‐related pain, but did not provide a definition for this outcome.

Timing of outcome measurement

The timing of outcome measurement of the four trials that investigated outcomes related to comfort or urethritis, or both, differed considerably. The trial conducted by Nacey 1984 and colleagues investigated urethritis with assessment at eight weeks and six months postcatheterisation (length of catheterisation two days) by clinical examination and urethral swabs (Nacey 1984).

Definition of outcomes

The method for gathering the data on catheter‐related pain, urethral discharge and allergic reaction was not described in the Takeuchi 1993 report. The Talja 1990 trial investigated inflammatory reaction in the urethra assessed by cytological urethral swabs taken immediately after catheterisation, after removal of the catheter and on the second or third day after removal. Stenzelius 2011 measured urinary symptoms whilst the catheter remained in situ based on a questionnaire, and 7 to 10 days following catheter removal based on a telephone interview.

Other outcomes

Pickard 2012 also measured other outcomes, including the development of adverse events, serious events (including urinary sepsis and death), health‐related quality of life (based on the EQ‐5D questionnaire), and economic outcomes.

An outcome of interest that was included in the trials of standard catheters was catheter‐related infection. In addition, one small Japanese trial of antiseptic‐coated catheters reported data for: catheter‐associated pain, urethral discharge and catheter‐related hypersensitivity or allergy (Takeuchi 1993). The six trials that randomised participants to two different types of standard catheters (Chene 1990; Kalambheti 1965;Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Talja 1990; Tidd 1976) investigated outcomes of catheter‐related infection or catheter‐related urethritis and urethral inflammatory reaction. One trial only reported an adverse effect, meatal stricture (Goodwin 1990).

Apart from variation in the definition of infection, the timing of the outcome measurement and duration of follow‐up was also diverse. Only six trials (Darouiche 1999; Johnson 1990; Liedberg 1990b; Maki 1997; Nickel 1989; Stensballe 2007) monitored catheter care violations. The method of obtaining urine specimens was varied. The majority of trials acquired samples from the catheter sampling port (Darouiche 1999; Johnson 1990; Liedberg 1990b; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998; Stensballe 2007; Takeuchi 1993). However, two trials used suprapubic puncture to obtain urine samples from participants (Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b), and one trial took specimens from the catheter urine bag, which could have resulted in contamination (Liedberg 1990a).

Economic outcomes

An economic analysis was performed in two trials. Karchmer 2000 calculated the total catheter‐related costs by summing the cost of infections and the cost of catheters and their components, and cost savings were estimated by subtracting the total catheter‐related cost for silver‐coated catheters from the total cost for uncoated catheters. The analysis included an estimation of both a lower and higher approximation of costs. Pickard 2012 measured cost‐effectiveness using a decision‐analytical model, which compared three types of catheters in terms of both UK NHS costs, and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), based on responses to the EQ‐5D questionnaire.

Excluded studies

We excluded twenty‐eight reports (Andersson 1986; Bach 1990; Bologna 1999; Britt 1977; Cleland 1971; Day 2003; Domurath 2011; Erickson 2008; Ghoreishi 2003; Grocela 2010; Hakvoort 2011; Hart 1981; Lee 1996; Leone 2003; Leone 2007; Leriche 2006; Litherland 2007; Nakada 1996; Newton 2002; Pachler 1998; Ratahi 2005; Rigini 2006; Sallami 2011; Schaeffer 1988; Shafik 1993; Sun 2008; Teare 1992; Witjes 2008). The reasons for exclusion are listed in the table Characteristics of excluded studies.

Risk of bias in included studies

Details of the risk of bias assessment of the individual trials are mentioned in the Characteristics of included studies table. The results are graphically illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The results are summarised below.

Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Allocation

Random sequence generation

We considered randomisation with allocation concealment to be adequate in six trials and judged it to be at low risk of bias (Chene 1990; Goodwin 1990; Nacey 1984; Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007; Thibon 2000).
We judged the method of allocation concealment to be unclear in 15 trials (Al Habdan 2003; Darouiche 1999; Kalambheti 1965; Karchmer 2000; Lee 2004; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998; Maki 1997; Nickel 1989; Stenzelius 2011; Takeuchi 1993; Talja 1990).
We found the method of allocation concealment to be inadequate in a further five trials and judged these at high risk of bias (Johnson 1990; Riley 1995; Tidd 1976; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b).

Concealment of allocation

We considered allocation to be adequately concealed in two trials and judged these to be at low risk of bias (Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007).
There was insufficient information to permit judgement in 21 trials (Al Habdan 2003; Chene 1990; Darouiche 1999; Goodwin 1990; Johnson 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Karchmer 2000; Lee 2004; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1997; Maki 1998; Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Stenzelius 2011; Takeuchi 1993; Talja 1990; Thibon 2000; Tidd 1976).
We judged three trials to be at high risk of bias (Riley 1995; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b).

Blinding

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

We considered blinding to be adequate in three of the included trials (Darouiche 1999; Stensballe 2007; Thibon 2000); it was achieved in one trial by identical packaging (Thibon 2000).
We deemed blinding to be unclear in 20 of the included trials (Al Habdan 2003; Chene 1990; Goodwin 1990; Johnson 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Karchmer 2000; Lee 2004; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1997; Maki 1998; Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Riley 1995; Stenzelius 2011; Talja 1990; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b) and inadequate in three of the included trials (Pickard 2012; Takeuchi 1993; Tidd 1976), with two cases being due to differences in catheter appearance (Pickard 2012; Tidd 1976).

1. Antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters

There were three types of antiseptic catheters compared with a standard catheter: silver oxide, silver alloy, and noble metal alloy. The trials for each were analysed in three subgroups depending on the type of intervention catheter.

Silver oxide versus standard catheter

Three trials compared silver oxide‐coated catheters with a standard catheter (Johnson 1990; Riley 1995; Takeuchi 1993) enrolling a total of 1828 patients. The trials used different standard catheters as the comparison catheter. Johnson 1990 used an all‐silicone catheter as the standard catheter, while Riley 1995 used silicone‐coated latex as the comparison catheter. Takeuchi 1993 did not define the standard catheter used in the trial. Eighty per cent of participants in one of the trials received systemic antibiotics (the reasons were not stated in the trial) (Riley 1995). All trials included men and women admitted to surgical or medical wards, or both, although Riley had more women in the treatment group (451/745) than in the control group (285/564). In the Takeuchi 1993 trial all the participants had bacteriuria when the trial ended at nine days catheterisation.

Symptomatic CAUTI

None of the studies assessed the primary outcome CAUTI as an outcome. Instead, all studies measured bacteriuria as the primary effectiveness outcome.

Bacteriuria and other secondary outcomes

Pooling the results of all three trials using a fixed‐effect model did not provide enough evidence to show whether or not there was a reduction in risk of developing bacteriuria (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13, Analysis 1.3.1; all three trials measured this outcome at less than one week Analysis 1.4.1). There was no statistically significant difference in the number with bacteriuria between groups.

Subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis was possible in one trial (Riley 1995). For bacteriuria reported separately in women and men, there was a reduction of risk of almost one‐third with the silver oxide catheter for women (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, Analysis 1.12.2), while for men there was not enough evidence to suggest whether or not there was a difference in risk with the standard catheter (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.88, Analysis 1.12.3).

The trial reported separately on those participants commenced on antibiotics prior to catheterisation but did not state the reason for the antibiotics. Further subgroup analysis of all participants receiving systemic antibiotics indicated that combining antibiotics with silver oxide catheters may reduce the risk of bacteriuria (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99, Analysis 1.12.4). Further analysis of women and men separately who received systemic antibiotics suggested that women were protected from bacteriuria with silver oxide catheters (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79, Analysis 1.12.5), but there was not enough evidence either way for men (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.13, Analysis 1.12.6).

Silver alloy versus standard catheter

Ten trials compared silver alloy catheter with a standard catheter (Karchmer 2000; Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998; Pickard 2012; Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b).

Most trials included both men and women except for one which included only men after radical prostatectomy (Verleyen 1999a), and two trials did not state information about the participants (Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986).

Pickard 2012 was a three‐armed trial, comparing both silver alloy hydrogel‐coated latex catheter and nitrofurazone‐impregnated silicone catheter with a standard PTFE‐coated latex catheter (control), in hospitalised patients catheterised for 14 days or less. In the trial, 95% of patients were catheterised for perioperative monitoring purposes. The distribution of symptomatic CAUTI baseline risk factors was balanced across the study groups. 73% of patients received prophylactic antibiotics to cover the surgical procedure. The median duration of catheterisation was two days (interquartile range, one to three days).
Liedberg 1990a was a three‐armed trial comparing silver alloy catheters with two non‐antiseptic impregnated catheters; one defined in the trial only as a standard catheter and the other a hydrogel catheter (the results for both these standard catheter groups were combined in the meta‐analyses).
Maki 1998 also defined the usual care catheter as 'control' and did not provide any further details.
Liedberg 1990b compared the silver alloy catheter with a standard catheter defined as Teflonised latex Foley.
Verleyen 1999b used a silver alloy hydrogel catheter versus a latex catheter as the comparison standard catheter.
Two trials compared silver alloy versus a standard silicone catheter (Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999a).
One trial compared the silver alloy hydrogel catheter versus a standard hydrogel‐coated catheter (Liedberg 1993).

Lundeberg did not define the standard catheter used as a comparison with the silver alloy catheters. Three trials monitored catheter care violations (Liedberg 1990b; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b).

Karchmer 2000 compared silver alloy hydrogel‐coated latex catheter with a hydrogel‐coated latex standard catheter in a cluster randomised trial where hospital ward was the unit of randomisation. Data were not presented in a form suitable for meta‐analysis, therefore are reported in Other Data tables only Analysis 1.6.

Symptomatic CAUTI

In terms of the primary review outcome, Pickard 2012 was the only trial which measured symptomatic CAUTI. The trial found no evidence that silver alloy‐coated catheters reduced symptomatic CAUTI risk, using either definitions (non‐microbiological‐based definition: 263/2097, 12.5% versus 271/2144, 12.6%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, Analysis 1.1.1; microbiological based definition: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.42, Analysis 1.2.1).

Bacteriuria and other secondary outcomes

For bacteriuria, nine trials measured the outcome (Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998; Pickard 2012; Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b). Eight trials defined ‘bacteriuria’ as ‘greater than 10⁵ CFU/mL’, whilst Pickard 2012 defined it as ‘greater than 10⁴ CFU/mL’. The timing of the outcome measurement varied considerably between trials. For the analysis, the outcome of bacteriuria was separated into two groups based on the time point of measurement: less than one week of catheterisation, and more than one week of catheterisation. Seven trials reported bacteriuria at less than one week (Liedberg 1990a; Liedberg 1990b; Liedberg 1993; Lundeberg 1986; Maki 1998; Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999b). All the trials used a latex catheter as the control catheter except Thibon 2000 which used a silicone control catheter.

The results of the meta‐analysis on bacteriuria showed a slight reduction in bacteriuria achieved by silver alloy catheters (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, Analysis 1.3.2).

For the seven trials which reported bacteriuria at less than one week, the slight reduction in bacteriuria achieved by silver alloy catheters was still significant (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.67, Analysis 1.4.2).

For the outcome of bacteriuria after more than one week of catheterisation, four trials reported on this outcome (Liedberg 1993; Thibon 2000; Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b). Liedberg 1993 and Verleyen 1999b used a latex catheter as the control, whilst Verleyen 1999a and Thibon 2000 used a silicone control catheter. The pooled results showed a reduction in bacteriuria achieved by silver alloy catheters over standard catheters (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.80, Analysis 1.5). Subgroup analysis showed that the reduction achieved by silver alloy was greater when latex was used as the control (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.76, Analysis 1.5.1) compared with silicone as the control (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55, Analysis 1.5.2).

The results of a cluster‐randomised cross‐over trial comparing silver alloy with standard (silicone) catheters (Karchmer 2000) were not included in the meta‐analyses because data were not available prior to crossover (Analysis 1.6), and also because of the heterogeneity of the outcome definition, which included patients with ‘bacteriuria or symptomatic or non‐symptomatic UTI’ (collectively defined as ‘≥ 10⁵ cfu/m’). The results of the rate of bacteriuria per 1000 patient days were 2.66 versus 3.35 (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), the rate of bacteriuria per 100 patients was 1.10 versus 1.36 (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01) and the rate of bacteriuria per 100 catheters was 2.13 versus 3.12 (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86) (Analysis 1.6).

The data from the cluster‐randomised cross‐over trial (Karchmer 2000) suggested that the sliver alloy catheter was better on two out of three outcome measures (Analysis 1.6).

Adverse effects

One trial (Pickard 2012) of silver alloy versus standard catheters reported on patient‐reported discomfort as a tertiary outcome. The results suggested that for the period whilst the catheter was in‐situ, silver alloy‐coated catheters were associated with less discomfort than standard catheters (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96) (Analysis 1.7.1). Although more people reported pain on removal of antiseptic catheters, this did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.20, Analysis 1.8).

One trial of antiseptic catheters (silver oxide) versus standard catheters included secondary outcomes related to patient comfort and adverse effects of the catheters (Takeuchi 1993). They recorded outcome measurements for pain and urethral secretions. No statistically significant difference was found in either outcome but the CIs were wide:

reported urethral secretions (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.03, Analysis 1.9.1);
patients reporting pain with catheters in place (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74 to 7.43, Analysis 1.10.1).

Economic outcomes

Two trials reported on economic outcomes (Karchmer 2000; Pickard 2012). Pickard 2012 undertook formal cost‐benefit analysis using a decision‐analytical model, comparing silver alloy‐coated catheters with standard PTFE‐coated catheters. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY). Healthcare costs were estimated from UK National Health Service (NHS) sources with QALYs calculated from participant completion of the European Quality of Life‐5 Dimensions questionnaire (EQ‐5D). The analysis suggested that silver alloy catheters were unlikely to be cost‐effective for use within UK NHS hospitals at all incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold values of between GBP 0 to GBP 50,000. Karchmer 2000 reported that for the duration of the trial (one year) silver alloy hydrogel catheter usage resulted in a total estimated catheter‐related cost reduction of between 3.3% and 35.5%. This translated to savings of between USD 14,456 and USD 573,293.

Noble metal alloy versus standard catheter

One trial (Stenzelius 2011) compared a noble metal alloy‐coated (containing a mixture of gold, palladium and silver alloy) latex catheter versus standard silicone catheters in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery (n = 439 patients). The outcomes measured were bacteriuria and urinary symptoms. The distribution of symptomatic CAUTI risk factors was balanced across both groups. Ninety‐three per cent of patients received prophylactic antibiotics to cover the surgical procedure. The median duration of catheterisation was two days (range 0 to 16 days).

The trialist did not report the primary outcome, symptomatic CAUTI. The trial found a significant reduction in bacteriuria achieved by the metal alloy‐coated latex catheter compared with control (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, Analysis 1.3.3). There were no significant differences in urinary symptoms, either during the period while the catheter remained in situ or within 7 to 10 days following catheter removal between the two groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38, Analysis 1.11.1). None of the patients who developed bacteriuria complained of any adverse urinary symptoms.

2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters

Two types of antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters were compared with a standard catheter: i) minocycline and rifampicin combined; or ii) nitrofurazone. The trials for each were analysed in two subgroups, depending on the type of intervention catheter, and grouped into separate outcomes, dependent upon duration of catheterisation, if this was reported.

Nitrofurazone versus standard

Five trials compared nitrofurazone‐impregnated catheters with standard catheters (Al Habdan 2003; Lee 2004; Maki 1997; Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007). Three types of standard catheter were used.

Al Habdan 2003 used a latex catheter as the standard catheter whilst Lee 2004 and Stensballe 2007 both used silicone catheters as the comparison.
Pickard 2012 used a PTFE‐coated latex catheter as the control.
One study did not report which catheter they used as a comparator (Maki 1997).

All of the patients in one trial received prophylactic antibiotics pre‐ and postoperatively (Al Habdan 2003), three trials recorded antibiotic use (Maki 1997; Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007), whilst two others did not record antibiotic use (Lee 2004; Liedberg 1993).

Only three of the trials adequately described the trial participants, and included both men and women (Lee 2004; Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007). However, Lee 2004 included fewer women in the treatment group compared to the control (23 versus 40) and more men in the treatment group than the control (69 versus 45); the reasons for this were not stated in the trial. In Pickard 2012, the ratio of women to men (62%) was balanced across all arms.

Symptomatic CAUTI

In terms of the primary review outcome, Pickard 2012 was the only study which measured symptomatic CAUTI. The median duration of catheterisation was two days (interquartile range, one to three days). For the outcome of symptomatic CAUTI using a non‐microbiological‐based definition, people using nitrofurazone catheters had a slight but statistically significant lower chance of having a UTI compared with standard catheters (228/2153, 10.6% versus 271/2144, 12.6%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; Analysis 2.1.1). For the outcome of symptomatic CAUTI using a microbiological‐based definition, nitrofurazone catheters achieved a slightly higher reduction against standard catheters (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; Analysis 2.2.1).

Bacteriuria and other outcomes

For the outcome of bacteriuria, all five trials reported it as an outcome. All but one trial (Pickard 2012) defined bacteriuria as ‘≥ 10³ cfu/mL’; Pickard 2012 defined it as ‘≥ 10⁴ cfu/mL’. Stensballe 2007 also included funguria as an outcome.

The trials differed in their timing of the outcome measurement. Three trials investigated the outcomes at less than one week (Lee 2004; Maki 1997; Stensballe 2007). Pickard 2012 did not report bacteriuria at different time periods, but since the majority of patients were catheterised for less than one week (median duration of catheterisation two days, interquartile range one to three days), the outcome for bacteriuria for the study was grouped under ‘less than one week’. Results were pooled using a fixed‐effect model and indicated that at less than one week of catheterisation, the risk of bacteriuria was statistically significantly reduced in the nitrofurazone impregnated catheter group (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85, Analysis 2.3.1).

For the outcome of bacteriuria at more than one week, only one study measured this outcome (Al Habdan 2003). The benefit from nitrofurazone impregnated catheters in preventing bacteriuria at more than one week was inconclusive, due to the small number of patients and relatively few events resulting in wide CIs (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.33, Analysis 2.4.1)

Adverse effects

For adverse effects, one trial compared nitrofurazone catheters versus standard catheters in terms of patient‐reported discomfort as a tertiary outcome (Pickard 2012). The results suggested that for the period whilst the catheter was in place, and on removal, nitrofurazone catheters were associated with more discomfort, with more patients complaining of discomfort compared with standard catheters (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41 (Analysis 2.5.1); and RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.57 (Analysis 2.6.1) respectively).

Economic outcomes

One trial reported on economic outcomes comparing nitrofurazone catheters with standard PTFE‐coated catheters (Pickard 2012). A formal cost‐benefit analysis using a decision‐analytical model was undertaken. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY). Healthcare costs were estimated from UK NHS sources with QALYs calculated from participant completion of the European Quality of Life‐5 Dimensions questionnaire (EQ‐5D). The analysis suggested that nitrofurazone catheters could potentially be cost‐saving, with an 84% probability that the incremental cost per QALY would be under GBP 30,000 (i.e. the willingness‐to‐pay threshold typically used in the UK).

Minocycline and rifampicin versus standard catheters

Only one small trial (n = 124) compared a minocycline and rifampicin‐impregnated catheter with a standard catheter (Darouiche 1999). This trial included men after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and compared a silicone catheter impregnated with minocycline and rifampicin with a standard (silicone) catheter (Darouiche 1999). Outcome measures included bacteriuria (greater than 10⁴ colony forming units per mL) at days three, seven and 14, and symptomatic UTI (timing not stated) as defined by the healthcare provider (Darouiche 1999).

One of 56 men in the antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter group had symptomatic UTI compared with six of 68 men in the control group (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.63, Analysis 2.1.2). For bacteriuria, at less than one week, the risk was about two‐thirds lower in the antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.73, Analysis 2.3.2); however, at greater than one week the evidence was inconclusive (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.03, Analysis 2.4.2).

3. Antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters

Only one trial addressed this comparison. Pickard 2012 was a three‐armed trial, comparing both silver alloy hydrogel‐coated latex catheter and nitrofurazone‐impregnated silicone catheter with a standard PTFE‐coated latex catheter (control), in hospitalised patients catheterised for 14 days or less. Although the study did not directly report on the comparison of antimicrobial (i.e. nitrofurazone) versus antiseptic (i.e. silver alloy) catheters, data from the trial were available to perform this direct comparison.

Symptomatic CAUTI

For the primary review outcome of symptomatic CAUTI, using a non‐microbiological‐based definition, people were less likely to have a UTI with nitrofurazone catheters (228/2153, 10.6%) compared with silver alloy (263/2097, 12.5%), but this was of borderline statistical significance (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00; Analysis 3.1.1). For the outcome of symptomatic CAUTI using a microbiological‐based definition, this difference was statistically significant in favour of nitrofurazone catheters versus silver alloy catheters (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; Analysis 3.2.1).

Bacteriuria and other outcomes

For the outcome of bacteriuria, data from Pickard 2012 showed that people also had significantly less bacteriuria with nitrofurazone catheters compared with silver alloy catheters (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91, Analysis 3.3.1).

Adverse effects

For adverse effects, one trial (Pickard 2012) measured the incidence of any discomfort reported by patients, for patients catheterised with nitrofurazone catheters and silver alloy catheters.

For the period whilst the catheter was in‐situ, and on removal, nitrofurazone catheters were associated with more discomfort, with more patients complaining of discomfort while the catheter was in place (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.70, Analysis 3.4.1); and on removal RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45, Analysis 3.5.1) compared with silver alloy catheters.

Economic outcomes

One trial reported on economic outcomes indirectly comparing nitrofurazone catheters with silver alloy catheters, with both types of catheters being compared directly with standard catheters (Pickard 2012). The methods and results have been described in earlier sections, under the main comparisons of antiseptic‐coated catheters versus standard catheters, and antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters versus standard catheters.

4. One type of standard indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of standard indwelling urethral catheter

Seven trials compared one type of standard catheter with another (Chene 1990; Goodwin 1990; Kalambheti 1965; Nacey 1984; Nickel 1989; Talja 1990; Tidd 1976).

Three trials using different outcome measurements compared two types of standard catheters to investigate infection (Chene 1990; Nickel 1989; Tidd 1976). The trials were not combined. All three trials compared different types of standard catheters.

The Nickel 1989 trial compared silicone with latex catheters, using the outcome asymptomatic bacteriuria (defined as greater than 10⁶ colony forming units per mLL), with the final measurement recorded 96 hours postcatheterisation.
The Tidd 1976 trial compared three types of standard catheters: hydrophilic polymer‐coated latex, uncoated latex and PVC indwelling catheters. The outcome of interest was UTI defined as asymptomatic bacteriuria 10³ per mL colony forming units. The final outcome measurement was recorded at day five to six postcatheterisation.
The Chene 1990 trial compared hydrogel with silicone catheters and the outcome measurement was asymptomatic bacteriuria.

In a further small trial, Goodwin 1990 compared a latex three‐way catheter (size 22G) with a PVC three‐way catheter (size 22G).

Three further trials compared different types of standard catheters to investigate urethral side effects in men (Kalambheti 1965; Nacey 1984; Talja 1990). The outcome measurements differed in all three trials.

The Kalambheti 1965 trial compared silicone with non‐silicone (not defined further) catheters with an outcome measurement of reported burning sensation in the urethra.

The Nacey 1984 trial compared silicone with latex catheters and the outcome was urethritis as measured by swabs of urethral discharge.

The Talja 1990 trial compared three types of standard catheters: hydrogel‐coated latex, siliconised latex and full silicone. The outcome of interest was urethral reaction measured from cytological urethral swab specimens using scanning electron microscopic analysis.

Symptomatic CAUTI

None of the trials reported the primary outcome.

Bacteriuria and other outcomes

One trial (Nickel 1989) found no evidence of difference in the risk of bacteriuria between two standard catheters, but they had wide CIs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.01, Analysis 4.1.1).

The evidence from anther small trial (Tidd 1976) was insufficient to detect a difference in the risk of infection between any of the three standard catheters compared, with wide CIs: hydron‐coated latex versus plain latex (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34, Analysis 4.1.2); hydron‐coated latex versus PVC balloon (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, Analysis 4.1.3); PVC balloon versus plain latex (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45, Analysis 4.1.4). This trial also had methodologically flawed randomisation in some cases.

The results in a further trial (Chene 1990) also had insufficient evidence to say whether or not there was a reduced risk of infection between the two standard catheters (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.47, Analysis 4.1.5).

Adverse effects

In one trial, (Kalambheti 1965), results using a fixed‐effect model found that the risk of a burning sensation in the urethra was less in the silicone catheter group than the non‐silicone group (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60, Analysis 4.3.1).

In Nacey 1984, there were fewer cases of urethritis with a silicone catheter (1/50 versus 11/50; RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.68, Analysis 4.4.1).

In Talja 1990, results using a fixed‐effect model in the comparison of hydrogel‐coated latex versus siliconised latex indicated no difference in urethral reaction (MD 0.00, 95% CI ‐3.51 to 3.51, Analysis 4.2.1). Results of the comparison of full silicone versus hydrogel‐coated latex and siliconised latex found that in both comparisons the risk of urethral reaction was less with a full silicone catheter: full silicone versus hydrogel‐coated latex (MD ‐16.00, 95% CI ‐18.84 to ‐13.16, Analysis 4.2.2); and full silicone versus siliconised latex (MD ‐16.00, 95% CI ‐18.96 to ‐13.04, Analysis 4.2.3).

In a fourth small trial (Goodwin 1990), only one person in each group had meatal stricture (Analysis 4.5.1).

Economic outcomes

None of the trials reported economic outcomes.

5. One type of antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheter

No trials were found that addressed this comparison.

6. One type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter

No trials were found that addressed this comparison.

Discussion

Summary of main results

This systematic review identified 26 eligible trials that addressed four of the six prestated hypotheses. In addition, three ongoing studies were identified (NCT00482547 2007; NCT01681511 2012; NCT02198833 2014). One trial compared an antiseptic catheter with an antibiotic catheter (Pickard 2012). No trials were identified that compared one type of antiseptic catheter with another type of antiseptic catheter, or one type of antibiotic catheter with another type of antibiotic catheter. Short‐term is defined as a duration of catheterisation which was intended to be less than 14 days.

Antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters.

This comparison included twelve trials that randomised a total of 8317 hospitalised adults (4133 catheterised with antiseptic catheters and 4184 with standard catheters) and one cross‐over trial that randomised hospital wards of 27,878 hospitalised adults. There were three types of antiseptic catheters: silver oxide, silver alloy and noble metal alloy (composed of a mixture of gold, palladium and silver alloy). Most of the trials included in the pooled analysis were small, with only three trials stating they used a power calculation (Pickard 2012; Stenzelius 2011; Thibon 2000).

For silver oxide (antiseptic‐coated) catheters, none of the included three trials measured the prespecified primary outcome i.e. symptomatic CAUTI. The catheters were not found to prevent bacteriuria in short‐term catheterised hospitalised adults in the three trials included in the analysis. Subgroup analysis by gender in one trial did suggest that women are less likely to develop bacteriuria if they use silver oxide catheters, whereas the evidence for men was inconclusive (Riley 1995). The same trial also suggested that systemic antibiotic use also decreased the rate of bacteriuria in the silver oxide group, particularly in women. These subgroup analyses should be interpreted cautiously, particularly when the overall result suggests no difference. However, silver oxide catheters are no longer manufactured and therefore these data are no longer clinically relevant.

For silver alloy (antiseptic‐coated) catheters, out of the 10 included studies, only one trial measured the primary outcome (Pickard 2012), which did not find any statistically significant reduction in symptomatic CAUTI. This finding was based on two different definitions of symptomatic CAUTI. In both instances, the experimental catheters did not demonstrate any benefit. The study was a well designed and robust RCT, specifically designed to determine the effectiveness of silver alloy catheters in comparison with standard catheters as used in UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Although previous studies (including the present review) found a slight but statistically significant reduction in bacteriuria from the pooled analysis of nine studies (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92), the Pickard 2012 trial confirms that such a reduction is neither clinically significant nor meaningful because of the lack of impact on symptomatic UTI. However, the authors of this trial acknowledged that the trial reflected the way short‐term catheters were used in UK NHS hospitals, where the median duration of catheterisation for the entire cohort (n = 7102) was only two days.

To address the issue of whether duration of catheterisation had an effect on the outcome, the authors conducted a subgroup analysis, which showed that the risk of infection was not influenced by the duration of catheterisation. This demonstrates the importance of measuring outcomes which are clinically important and meaningful to patients in clinical trials, rather than surrogate outcomes such as bacteriuria.

Other limitations in the meta‐analysis of trials for the outcome of bacteriuria included clinical heterogeneity, such as diverse populations, use of antibiotics and differences in the standard catheter chosen as the comparison. Only one trial reported catheter care violations (Liedberg 1990b). The method of urine specimen collection also differed between the trials, from two trials using the gold standard method of suprapubic puncture (Verleyen 1999a; Verleyen 1999b), five using various methods to collect the specimen directly from the catheter and one trial collecting the specimen from the drainage bag, which increases the likelihood of bacterial contamination.

For noble metal alloy (antiseptic‐coated) catheters, one study (Stenzelius 2011) found a dramatic reduction in bacteriuria in comparison with standard silicone catheters (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95). Rather oddly, the primary outcome of the study was bacteriuria rather than symptomatic CAUTI, although there was an opportunity for the trialists to measure symptomatic UTI, considering they assessed for the presence of urinary symptoms. As such, the clinical significance of the findings remains uncertain.

Catheterised men and women generally develop bacteriuria in different ways due to their anatomical differences. Men are more likely to develop catheter‐related bacteriuria via the intraluminal route from a contaminated drainage bag, while in women contamination is more often transurethral when bacteria migrate from the periurethral region after faecal contamination. One major limitation of the silver alloy trials was that subgroup analysis was not possible by gender. Subgrouping of the results by duration of catheterisation was possible, however, and this indicated that the effect of silver alloy catheters on bacteriuria persisted beyond one week of catheterisation up to two weeks.

In terms of adverse effects or catheter‐related discomfort, only three trials assessed these outcomes on antiseptic catheters compared with standard catheters. Pickard 2012 found silver alloy catheters were no worse than standard catheters, whilst Stenzelius 2011 found no differences between noble metal alloy catheters and standard catheters. Although Takeuchi 1993 measured patient comfort and adverse effects related to silver oxide catheters, the trial was underpowered and poorly designed, and the methods for collecting the secondary outcome data were not described; this precluded any meaningful interpretation of the trial findings.

Economic evaluation

There have been no trials that investigated the issue of whether patients catheterised with antiseptic catheters may develop antimicrobial resistance. Two trials undertook economic evaluation. Karchmer 2000 was a large cluster‐randomised cross‐over trial which also included an economic analysis; the study found data in favour of silver alloy hydrogel catheters (Karchmer 2000). Silver alloy catheters were significantly more expensive than standard catheters. The cost estimates derived in the trial used both a low and high approximation of costs and calculated catheter‐related cost reduction of between 3.3% and 35.5%. The limitation of this trial was firstly, the randomisation of hospital wards rather than individual patients, and secondly, the risk of cross‐over of catheters leading to contamination between groups. (Pickard 2012 undertook formal economic analysis of silver alloy catheters versus standard catheters using an economic model. In the absence of any evidence of clinical effectiveness, the trial concluded that silver alloy catheters were unlikely to be cost‐effective for the UK NHS.

Elsewhere, outside this review, the issue of cost‐effectiveness of silver alloy catheters has also been covered by other studies, albeit in an indirect way. Plowman developed an illustrative model of the annual costs and benefits associated with the use of silver alloy catheters in hospitalised medical and surgical inpatients in NHS hospitals in England (Plowman 2001). The model suggested that a reduction in the incidence of UTI of 14.6% in catheterised medical patients and 11.4% in catheterised surgical patients would ensure that the cost of silver alloy catheters was the same as standard catheters. Any further reduction in incidence would then result in cost savings. In another study conducted in the USA, Saint 2000 developed a cost‐benefit decision model using a simulated cohort of 1000 hospitalised general medical, surgical, urologic and intensive care patients requiring short‐term catheterisation (two to ten days) comparing silver alloy with standard catheters (Saint 2000). The results were calculated using a relative risk reduction of bacteriuria with the use of silver alloy catheters of 25%. They calculated that the use of silver alloy catheters could lead to a 47% relative decrease in the incidence of symptomatic UTI (from 30 to 16 cases per 1000 patients), with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 74, as well as a relative decrease in resultant bacteraemia of 44% (from 4.5 to 2.5 cases), with a NNT of 500. Using a multivariate sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, they indicated that silver alloy catheters could provide benefit in all cases and cost savings in 84% of cases. However, without any clinical benefit in terms of significant reductions in symptomatic CAUTI, it is hard to imagine how these potential economic benefits could have been achieved.

Antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral catheters

This comparison included the results of six trials that randomised a total of 5248 hospitalised adults (2625 catheterised with antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters and 2623 with standard catheters). There were two types of antimicrobial‐impregnated catheters: minocycline combined with rifampicin and nitrofurazone alone.

As with the antiseptic trials, the antimicrobial trials included in the pooled analysis were of small numbers of participants, with the exception of Pickard 2012. Only Pickard 2012 measured symptomatic CAUTI, whilst the rest measured bacteriuria as the main outcome measure.

Of the six studies, only one of these (Darouiche 1999) investigated minocycline‐ and rifampicin‐impregnated catheters compared with a standard catheter. This relatively small trial was not powered to detect differences in bacteriuria. It included a very limited population (men after radical prostatectomy) and therefore the benefit shown in reducing bacteriuria in those catheterised for less than a week may not be applicable to other groups of adult patients, particularly women. In fact, one of the inclusion criterion was sterile urine prior to catheterisation which would be unlikely to be found in more high risk groups. There was not enough evidence to show whether this difference persisted after the first week. Adverse effects, such as antimicrobial resistance to the catheters over time, were not investigated. Moreover, minocycline‐ and rifampicin‐impregnated catheters are no longer in clinical use and therefore these data are no longer clinically relevant.

There were five other antimicrobial trials that investigated nitrofurazone‐impregnated catheters against standard controls. Based on only one study (Pickard 2012), the review found that nitrofurazone catheters achieved a slight but statistically significant reduction in symptomatic CAUTI, depending on the definition of the outcome. For the outcome of bacteriuria, the pooled data from four studies also showed a significant reduction at one week. The data regarding duration of catheterisation beyond one week were inconclusive.

Of the four trials that investigated the effect of nitrofurazone‐impregnated catheters against standard catheters on bacteriuria at less than one week, three of these studies were well designed to minimise bias (Maki 1997; Pickard 2012; Stensballe 2007);Maki 1997 and Stensballe 2007 were relatively small trials. The other trial (Lee 2004) demonstrated bias in its selection criteria with an unequal distribution of men and women in the control and treatment groups.

In terms of catheter‐related discomfort, Pickard 2012 was the only study which assessed this outcome for nitrofurazone catheters in comparison with standard catheters. Up to 43% more patients who received the nitrofurazone catheter complained of catheter‐related discomfort for the period whilst the catheter was in situ and on catheter removal, compared with standard catheters. This finding is likely to be clinically relevant to patients, and is probably due to the different properties of the catheter material.

Taken together, these data indicate a small but statistically significant benefit regarding clinically relevant outcomes achieved by these catheters, whilst being associated with more discomfort.

Economic evaluation

Data regarding economic evaluation of nitrofurazone catheters were obtained from Pickard 2012, who undertook formal economic analysis of nitrofurazone catheters versus standard catheters using an economic model. Based on incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) calculated from the perspective of the UK NHS using self administered questionnaires, the study concluded that there was a high (84%) probability that the catheters could be cost‐effective within NHS hospitals, although this estimate was associated with some uncertainty. Part of the methodological problems related to the length of hospital stay, which appeared to be unbalanced within the study arms; in the majority of circumstances, duration of hospital stay was not related to the presence of the catheter or to CAUTI, but rather to underlying medical conditions or surgical procedures.

Antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus antiseptic‐coated indwelling urethral catheters

Data for this comparison were provided by Pickard 2012, which compared nitrofurazone (antimicrobial‐impregnated) catheters and silver alloy (antiseptic‐coated) catheters against standard catheters in a three‐armed trial. The results showed that nitrofurazone catheters were superior to silver alloy catheters in reducing both symptomatic CAUTI and bacteriuria. However, up to 50% more patients who received nitrofurazone catheters complained of catheter‐related discomfort compared with those who received silver catheters. The potential clinical benefit of nitrofurazone catheters must be balanced against the likelihood that it will cause greater discomfort.

Economic evaluation

Pickard 2012 also performed formal economic evaluation of nitrofurazone catheters versus silver alloy catheters. Both catheters were compared with standard catheters, and the results suggested that silver alloy catheters were unlikely to be cost‐effective, whilst nitrofurazone catheters could potentially be cost‐effective for use in UK NHS hospitals.

One type of standard indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of standard indwelling urethral catheter

This comparison included six trials that randomised a total of 653 hospitalised adults to different types of standard catheters. Three small trials looked at the likelihood of infection between types of standard catheters. There were significant clinical differences between the trials, in terms of: comparison of different types of standard catheters, inclusion of different types of patients and variable outcome measurements. For these reasons, the data from these trials were not pooled. None of the trials, however, provided sufficient evidence to suggest whether any type of standard catheter was superior than another in terms of reducing the rate of bacteriuria.

Another three trials investigated adverse effects of standard catheters, in particular urethral side effects in men. As before, the trials were clinically heterogenous. All the trials included different outcome measures and the catheters compared were diverse. The results indicated that siliconised catheters were less likely to result in adverse urethral effects in men, but each outcome was addressed only in single small trials.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

The primary objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of different types of indwelling urethral catheter in reducing the risk of UTI in adults who undergo short‐term urethral catheterisation in hospitals. Although 26 RCTs were included, only one trial ((Pickard 2012) measured symptomatic CAUTI using standardised definitions. The trial was designed to assess the catheters as they are used within UK NHS hospitals as short‐term catheters only. The majority of patients (95%) were patients undergoing elective surgery and were catheterised for perioperative monitoring purposes. As such, the study and review findings have to be interpreted accordingly.

It remains unknown if the effectiveness results regarding the experimental catheters would apply to longer‐term catheters, although the trial did not find any interaction between catheter duration and reduction of CAUTI risk. Equally, the impact of the catheters on different groups of patients, for instance those at high risk of developing CAUTIs (i.e. patients in Intensive Therapy Units, patients undergoing urological surgery, or patients with recurrent UTIs) remains uncertain.

In addition, none of the identified trials addressed the following potentially important question:

Is one type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter better than another type of antimicrobial‐impregnated indwelling urethral catheter?

Consequently, further trials may be required to address the above uncertainties.

Quality of the evidence

We contacted content experts to identify critical outcomes relevant to patients undergoing short‐term urethral catheterisation that could be included in this systematic review. Subsequently, we identified five patients who had undergone urethral catheterisation and invited them to take part in a focus group to identify important outcomes from their perspective. The review authors believe that the current work demonstrates the importance of patient involvement when developing Cochrane reviews and for identifying critical outcomes in order to maximise their relevance (Omar 2013).

The assessment of the quality of the evidence was performed using GRADE, based on the four critical outcomes identified by this process: symptomatic CAUTI, patient discomfort whilst catheter is in‐situ, bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent, and urinary sepsis (Omar 2013).

There was high quality evidence from one large trial (Pickard 2012) that silver alloy (antiseptic‐coated) catheters did not significantly reduce symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16). No trial reported CAUTI for silver oxide (antiseptic‐coated) catheters.

There was high quality evidence from the same trial (Pickard 2012) that nitrofurazone‐impregnated (antimicrobial‐impregnated) catheters achieved a slight but statistically significant reduction in symptomatic CAUTI compared with standard catheters (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99). No trial reported CAUTI for minocycline/rifampicin (antimicrobial‐impregnated) catheters.

The quality of evidence for the other outcomes is summarised in the following tables: summary of findings Table for the main comparison; summary of findings Table 2; summary of findings Table 3; Summary of findings table 5; Summary of findings table 6; summary of findings Table 4.

In general the risk of bias from the smaller trials was high due to lack of adequate reporting or use of standardised methods.

Potential biases in the review process

We searched all the important databases and imposed no language restriction in our search strategy. However, we were mindful that these databases might not have contained all the potentially eligible trials. We made every effort to ensure adherence to the methods as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). Some of the authors of this review (TL and KG) were directly involved in the Catheter Trial (Pickard 2012) as co‐applicants. In order to minimise bias, the risk of bias assessment of Pickard 2012 and GRADE quality of evidence assessments were performed by other authors who were not involved with the trial (MO and EF).

Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 1 Symptomatic CAUTI: using non‐microbiological‐based definition.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 2 Symptomatic CAUTI: using microbiological‐based definition.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 3 Number with bacteriuria.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 4 Number with bacteruria (< 1 week).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 5 Number with bacteriuria (>1 week).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Silver	Standard	Risk Ratio
Bacteriuria rate per 1000 patient days
Karchmer 2000	2.66	3.35	0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99
Bacteriuria rate per 100 patients
Karchmer 2000	1.10	1.36	0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01
Bacteriuria rate per 100 catheters
Karchmer 2000	2.13	3.12	0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 6 Cross‐over trial.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 7 Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 8 Number with pain on catheter removal.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 9 Number with urethral secretions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 10 Number with pain with catheter in place.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 11 Number with urinary symptoms (7 ‐ 10 days post‐catheterisation).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 12 Number with bacteriuria ‐ subgroup analysis for silver oxide catheters.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 1 Symptomatic CAUTI: using non‐microbiological‐based definition.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 2 Symptomatic CAUTI: using microbiological‐based definition.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 3 Number with bacteriuria (< 1 week).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 4 Number with bacteriuria (> 1 week).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 5 Number with pain with catheter in place.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter, Outcome 6 Number with pain on catheter removal.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter, Outcome 1 Symptomatic CAUTI: using non‐microbiological‐based definition.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter, Outcome 2 Symptomatic CAUTI: using microbiological‐based definition.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter, Outcome 3 Number with bacteriuria.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter, Outcome 4 Number with pain with catheter in place.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter, Outcome 5 Number with pain on catheter removal.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter, Outcome 1 Number with bacteruria.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter, Outcome 2 Urethral reaction.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter, Outcome 3 Number with burning sensation in urethra.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter, Outcome 4 Number with urethritis.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter, Outcome 5 Number with meatal stricture.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Antispetic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ silver alloy versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4241 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high^1,2
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ silver alloy versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4241 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2,3
Bacterial resistance towards antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Urinary sepsis ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ‐ silver oxide versus standard Number with pain with catheter in place	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	34 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2,4,5,6
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ‐ silver alloy versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	3718 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high^1,2,5
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Only one trial. ² Not applicable as there is only one trial. ³ 95% confidence interval is wide (0.83 to 1.42) ⁴ Sequence generation and allocation concealment unclear. ⁵ GRADE‐specific outcome was patient reported discomfort whilst trial reported patient reported pain. ⁶ 95% confidence interval is very wide (0.48 to 4.27)

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Antispetic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4297 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	4297 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Urinary sepsis	Study population		Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment
	See comment	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	3768 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Not applicable because there was only one trial.

Summary of findings 2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 3. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ antibiotic versus silver alloy	Study population		RR 0.84 (0.71 to 1)	4250 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	125 per 1000	105 per 1000 (89 to 125)
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ antibiotic versus silver alloy	Study population		RR 0.64 (0.48 to 0.86)	4250 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
	50 per 1000	32 per 1000 (24 to 43)
Urinary sepsis	Study population		Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment
	See comment	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ	Study population		RR 1.5 (1.32 to 1.7)	3708 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high¹
	176 per 1000	264 per 1000 (232 to 299)
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Not applicable because there was only one trial. ² 95% Confidence interval is wide (0.71 to 1.00).

Summary of findings 3. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 4. One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Patient or population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration Settings: Hospital Intervention: one type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Urinary sepsis	Study population		Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment
	See comment	See comment
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ Number with burning sensation in urethra ‐ Silicone versus non‐silicone	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	40 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low^1,2,3,4
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Did not specify the method of sequence generation and allocation concealment. ² Only one trial. ³ Burning sensation in urethra is used as a proxy of patient discomfort. ⁴ Only one trial. Funnel plot not applicable.

Summary of findings 4. One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 1. Types of catheters

Antiseptic	Antibiotic	Standard
Silver oxide	Silicone impregnated with minocycline and rifampin	Silicone
Silver alloy	Silicone impregnated with nitrofurazone	Latex
Noble metal alloy containing a mixture of gold, palladium and silver alloy		Hydrogel
		Siliconised latex
		Teflonised latex
		Hydrogel‐coated latex
		Hydrophilic polymer‐coated latex
		Polyvinyl chloride
		Polytetrafluoroethylene

Table 1. Types of catheters

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Symptomatic CAUTI: using non‐microbiological‐based definition Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Silver alloy versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Symptomatic CAUTI: using microbiological‐based definition Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 Silver alloy versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Number with bacteriuria Show forest plot	12		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 Silver oxide versus standard	3	1828	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.72, 1.13]
3.2 Silver alloy versus standard	8	5336	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.73, 0.92]
3.3 Noble metal alloy versus standard	1	401	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.25 [0.07, 0.86]
4 Number with bacteruria (< 1 week) Show forest plot	10		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 Silver oxide versus standard	3	1828	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.72, 1.13]
4.2 Silver alloy versus standard	7	1712	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.54 [0.43, 0.67]
5 Number with bacteriuria (>1 week) Show forest plot	4	577	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.64 [0.51, 0.80]

5.1 Silver alloy versus latex	2	351	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.60 [0.47, 0.76]
5.2 Silver alloy versus silicone	2	226	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.50, 1.55]
6 Cross‐over trial Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

6.1 Bacteriuria rate per 1000 patient days			Other data	No numeric data
6.2 Bacteriuria rate per 100 patients			Other data	No numeric data
6.3 Bacteriuria rate per 100 catheters			Other data	No numeric data
7 Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

7.1 Silver alloy versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
8 Number with pain on catheter removal Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

8.1 Silver alloy versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9 Number with urethral secretions Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

9.1 Silver oxide versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Number with pain with catheter in place Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

10.1 Silver oxide versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
11 Number with urinary symptoms (7 ‐ 10 days post‐catheterisation) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

11.1 Noble metal alloy versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
12 Number with bacteriuria ‐ subgroup analysis for silver oxide catheters Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12.1 All participants: silver oxide versus standard	3	1828	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.72, 1.13]
12.2 All women	1	736	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.63 [0.45, 0.89]
12.3 All men	1	573	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.62 [0.91, 2.88]
12.4 All participants receiving systemic antibiotics	1	1049	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.45, 0.99]
12.5 All women receiving systemic antibiotics	1	575	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.50 [0.31, 0.79]
12.6 All men receiving systemic antibiotics	1	474	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.49, 2.13]

Comparison 1. Antiseptic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Symptomatic CAUTI: using non‐microbiological‐based definition Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Nitrofurazone versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Minocycline and rifampicin versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Symptomatic CAUTI: using microbiological‐based definition Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 Nitrofurazone versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Number with bacteriuria (< 1 week) Show forest plot	5		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 Nitrofurazone versus standard	4	4412	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.64, 0.85]
3.2 Minocycline and rifampicin versus standard	1	124	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.36 [0.18, 0.73]
4 Number with bacteriuria (> 1 week) Show forest plot	2	224	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.76, 0.96]

4.1 Nitrofurazone versus standard	1	100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.08 [0.00, 1.33]
4.2 Minocycline and rifampicin versus standard	1	124	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.86, 1.03]
5 Number with pain with catheter in place Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Nitrofurazone versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Number with pain on catheter removal Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 Nitrofurazone versus standard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 2. Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Symptomatic CAUTI: using non‐microbiological‐based definition Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Nitrofurazone versus silver alloy	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Symptomatic CAUTI: using microbiological‐based definition Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 Nitrofurazone versus silver alloy	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Number with bacteriuria Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3.1 Nitrofurazone versus silver alloy	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Number with pain with catheter in place Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 Nitrofurazone versus silver alloy	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Number with pain on catheter removal Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Nitrofurazone versus silver alloy	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 3. Antimicrobial‐coated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Number with bacteruria Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Silicone versus latex	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Hydron coated latex versus plain latex	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 Hydron coated latex versus PVC balloon	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.4 PVC balloon versus plain latex	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.5 Hydrogel versus silicone	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Urethral reaction Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 Siliconised Latex versus Hydrogel coated latex	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.2 Full silicone versus Hydrogel coated latex	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.3 Full silicone versus Siliconised latex	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Number with burning sensation in urethra Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3.1 Silicone versus non‐silicone	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Number with urethritis Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 Silicone versus latex	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Number with meatal stricture Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Latex (3 way catheter size 22G) versus PVC (3 way catheter size 22G)	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 4. One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Resumen

Antecedentes

Objetivos

Métodos de búsqueda

Criterios de selección

Obtención y análisis de los datos

Resultados principales

Conclusiones de los autores

PICO

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

Resumen en términos sencillos

Tipos de sonda uretral para el tratamiento de los trastornos de la micción a corto plazo en adultos hospitalizados

Resumen visual

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

Implications for research

1. Need for standardised definitions for outcome measures in trials assessing CAUTIs

2. Valuation of benefit

3. Further exploration of antimicrobial devices

4. Alternative interventions to reduce CAUTI

Summary of findings

Background

Description of the condition

Description of the intervention

How the intervention might work

Why it is important to do this review

Objectives

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Types of participants

Exclusions

Types of interventions

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

Secondary outcomes

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

Searching other resources

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Data extraction and management

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Measures of treatment effect

Unit of analysis issues

Dealing with missing data

Assessment of heterogeneity

Assessment of reporting biases

Data synthesis

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

Included studies

Participants

Conditions/populations

Gender

Antiobiotic use

Interventions and comparisons

Duration of catheterisation

Outcome measures

Primary outcome

Secondary outcomes

Excluded studies

Risk of bias in included studies

Allocation

Random sequence generation

Concealment of allocation

Blinding

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Incomplete outcome data

Selective reporting

Other potential sources of bias