Evaluation of a New PVC-free Catheter Material for Intermittent Catheterization: a Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study

Overview

Journal Scand J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2012 Jul 6

PMID 22762536

Citations 6

Authors

Kerstin Johansson

Gunvor Greis

Birgit Johansson

Agneta Grundtmann

Yvonne Pahlby

Solveig Torn

Hanna Axelberg

Petrea Carlsson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is commonly used as a catheter material in catheters for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) but, owing mainly to environmental concerns, a PVC-free material has been proposed. The objective of this study was to compare patients' tolerability for catheters made of PVC and a newly developed PVC-free material.

Material And Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study in 104 male patients with maintained urethra sensibility who practised CIC. The patients evaluated in a randomized order a PVC and a PVC-free LoFric® catheter after 1 week's use of each. The material properties and tolerability, i.e. reported perceived discomfort, of each catheter were compared and adverse events documented.

Results: Twenty-nine (28%) and 15 (14%) patients reported discomfort when using the PVC catheter and the PVC-free LoFric catheter, respectively. A comparison showed that five patients (5%) reported discomfort with the PVC-free and not with the PVC catheter, and 19 patients (18%) reported discomfort with the PVC and not with the PVC-free catheter (p = 0.0066). Forty patients reported a total of 91 adverse events, of which the most common were discomfort in terms of pain, a burning sensation and bleeding.

Conclusions: Generally low discomfort rates were reported in the study population, suggesting a high tolerance for CIC with catheters of both the PVC and the PVC-free materials. The lowest discomfort was, however, found when CIC was performed using the PVC-free LoFric catheter.

Citing Articles

New Antimicrobial Materials Based on Plasticized Polyvinyl Chloride for Urinary Catheters: Preparation and Testing.

Deleanu I, Grosu E, Ficai A, Ditu L, Motelica L, Oprea O Polymers (Basel). 2024; 16(21).

PMID: 39518238 PMC: 11548089. DOI: 10.3390/polym16213028.

Understanding the properties of intermittent catheters to inform future development.

Moore J, Burns J, McClelland N, Quinn J, McCoy C Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2023; 238(6):713-727.

PMID: 37300485 PMC: 11318220. DOI: 10.1177/09544119231178468.

Translation and Validation of the Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire (ICDQ) into Greek.

Zachariou A, Zachariou D, Kaltsas A, Giannakis I, Dimitriadis F, Douvli E J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022; 15:2571-2577.

PMID: 36388624 PMC: 9656416. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S387110.

User perception of a new hydrophilic-coated male urinary catheter for intermittent use.

Koeter I, Stensrod G, Hunsbedt Nilsen A, Lund R, Haslam C, De Seze M Nurs Open. 2018; 6(1):116-125.

PMID: 30534401 PMC: 6279713. DOI: 10.1002/nop2.193.

Gains in health utility associated with urinary catheter innovations.

Krassioukov A, Igawa Y, Averbeck M, Madersbacher H, Lloyd A, Bogelund M Med Devices (Auckl). 2018; 11:345-351.

PMID: 30319291 PMC: 6171519. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S165778.

References

Chartier-Kastler E, Lauge I, Ruffion A, Goossens D, Charvier K, Biering-Sorensen F . Safety of a new compact catheter for men with neurogenic bladder dysfunction: a randomised, crossover and open-labelled study. Spinal Cord. 2011; 49(7):844-50. DOI: 10.1038/sc.2011.5. View

Vapnek J, Maynard F, Kim J . A prospective randomized trial of the LoFric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. J Urol. 2003; 169(3):994-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000051160.72187.e9. View

Sekar P, Wallace D, Waites K, DeVivo M, Lloyd L, Stover S . Comparison of long-term renal function after spinal cord injury using different urinary management methods. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 78(9):992-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90063-0. View

Sutherland R, Kogan B, Baskin L, Mevorach R . Clean intermittent catheterization in boys using the LoFric catheter. J Urol. 1996; 156(6):2041-3. View

Witjes J, Del Popolo G, Marberger M, Jonsson O, Kaps H, Chapple C . A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study comparing polyvinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride-free catheter materials. J Urol. 2009; 182(6):2794-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.047. View

Waller L, Jonsson O, Norlen L, Sullivan L . Clean intermittent catheterization in spinal cord injury patients: long-term followup of a hydrophilic low friction technique. J Urol. 1995; 153(2):345-8. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199502000-00014. View

Vaidyanathan S, Soni B, Dundas S, Krishnan K . Urethral cytology in spinal cord injury patients performing intermittent catheterisation. Paraplegia. 1994; 32(7):493-500. DOI: 10.1038/sc.1994.78. View

Aslan A, Kogan B . Conservative management in neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Curr Opin Urol. 2002; 12(6):473-7. DOI: 10.1097/00042307-200211000-00005. View

Waller L, Telander M, Sullivan L . The importance of osmolality in hydrophilic urethral catheters: a crossover study. Spinal Cord. 1997; 35(4):229-33. DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100390. View

10.

LAPIDES J, Diokno A, Silber S, Lowe B . Clean, intermittent self-catheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol. 1972; 107(3):458-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)61055-3. View

11.

Diokno A, Mitchell B, Nash A, Kimbrough J . Patient satisfaction and the LoFric catheter for clean intermittent catheterization. J Urol. 1995; 153(2):349-51. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199502000-00015. View

12.

Christ K, Kornhuber H . Treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in multiple sclerosis by ultrasound-controlled bladder training. Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970). 1980; 228(3):191-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF00342344. View

13.

De Ridder D, Vermeulen C, Ketelaer P, van Poppel H, Baert L . Pelvic floor rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Belg. 1999; 99(1):61-4. View