A comparison of prelubricated hydrophilic and non‐hydrophilic polyvinyl chloride catheters for urethral catheterization

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether patients performing clean intermittent self‐catheterization (CISC) for a short period preferred a prelubricated, hydrophilic, disposable polyvinyl chloride (PVC) catheter or a non‐hydrophilic PVC catheter which could be used several times and that had to be lubricated by the patient. Patients and methods In a prospective cross‐over study, 32 patients used each type of catheter for 3 weeks. After each 3‐week period, the patients completed a questionnaire to assess comfort and preference, and urine specimens were obtained for culture. Results There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of CISC, discomfort when used, opinion on handling the catheters, preference toward one of the catheters, or of infection. Conclusion Non‐hydrophilic PVC catheters may be used safely and with no discomfort to the patient. In addition it may be possible for the healthcare system to save money, as the non‐hydrophilic PVC catheters are much cheaper.

Intermittent catheterization with hydrophilic catheters as a treatment of chronic neurogenic urinary retention

“…61 A mixed population (bladder augmentation, artificial sphincter, Mitrofanoff) preferred Lofric over PVC plus gel because it reduced discomfort, insertion was smoother and easier, and no gel was required, 20 whereas patients with prostate enlargement reported no significant differences. 62 A direct comparison of different brands of hydrophilic catheter in a female non-neurogenic population found they performed similarly. 63 Further research is underway including a phase IV randomized controlled trial of the frequency of symptomatic UTI with hydrophilic catheters versus PVC plus lubricant in spinal cord injured patients (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00318591).…”

Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America

“…The authors found studies to be methodologically weak, to have small sample sizes, and, in several trials, to combine use of catheters and of techniques leading to possible confounding. Nevertheless, the Cochrane authors concluded from a meta-analysis of these trials involving inpatients and outpatients with and without neurogenic bladders who received intermittent catheterization that there was no difference in the risk of CA-bacteriuria or CA-UTI with use of sterile or clean technique, with use of sterile catheters (single-use) or multiple-use catheters using the clean technique, or with use of multiple-use catheters changed daily or weekly using the clean technique [160,[163][164][165][166][167]. There are no randomized, controlled studies that compared clean or sterile technique for intermittently catheterized patients in the outpatient setting, although the clean technique is widely used by outpatients.…”

“…Hydrophilic catheters are characterized by having a layer of polymer coating that is bound to the catheter surface that absorbs and binds water to the catheter, which results in reduced friction on catheter insertion and reduced urethral inflammation [168]. These catheters have been associated with improved patient satisfaction in some [169] but not all [166] studies. A crossover trial involving men with prostate enlargement showed no reduction in CA-bacteriuria or CA-UTI with the hydrophilic catheter [166].…”

“…These catheters have been associated with improved patient satisfaction in some [169] but not all [166] studies. A crossover trial involving men with prostate enlargement showed no reduction in CA-bacteriuria or CA-UTI with the hydrophilic catheter [166]. Three parallel group trials compared a hydrophilic catheter with an uncoated catheter and reported data on CA-UTI [170][171][172].…”

Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic urinary catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analyses

“…Other two studies [31, 32] included patients with neurogenic bladder without specifying the origin. Pachler and colleagues [33] considered males with urinary retention due to prostatic enlargement, while Sutherland et al [34] involved in the study boys with voiding dysfunctions due to different causes (spinal dysraphism, spinal cord injury or Hinman syndrome).…”