CATHETER II: a Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Clinical Effectiveness of Various Washout Policies Versus No Washout Policy in Preventing Catheter-associated Complications in Adults Living with Long-term Catheters

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Dec 2

PMID 39622574

Authors

Mohamed Abdel-Fattah

Muhammad Imran Omar

Diana Johnson

David Cooper

Lynda Constable

Sheela Tripathee

Sara J MacLennan

Konstantinos Dimitropoulos

Suzanne Evans

Hashim Hashim

Mary Kilonzo

James Larcombe

Paul Little

Peter Murchie

Phyo Kyaw Myint

James Ndow

Catherine Paterson

Karen Powell

Graham Scotland

Nikesh Thiruchelvam

Amanda Young

Seonaidh Cotton

John Norrie

Graeme MacLennan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Do weekly prophylactic saline or acidic catheter washouts in addition to standard long-term catheter (LTC) care improve the outcomes of adults with LTC compared with standard LTC care only.

Design: Three-arm superiority open-label randomised controlled trial.

Setting: UK community-based study.

Participants: 80 adults with LTC (any type/route) ≥28 days in situ with no plans to discontinue and able to self-manage the washouts/study documentation with/without a carer.

Interventions: Randomly allocated (26:27:27) to receive standard LTC care with weekly saline or weekly acidic or no prophylactic washouts for up to 24 months.

Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was catheter blockage requiring intervention (per 1000 catheter days). Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection (S-CAUTI) requiring antibiotics, adverse events, participants' quality of life and day-to-day activities, acceptability and adherence.

Results: Outcomes reported for 25 saline, 27 acidic and 26 control participants. LTC blockages (per 1000 catheter days) requiring treatment were 9.96, 10.53 and 20.92 in the saline, acidic and control groups, respectively. The incident rate ratio (IRR) favours the washout groups (saline 0.65 (97.5% CI 0.24 to 1.77); p=0.33 and acidic 0.59 (97.5% CI 0.22 to 1.63); p=0.25), although not statistically significant. The S-CAUTI rate (per 1000 catheter days) was 3.71, 6.72 and 8.05 in the saline, acidic and control groups, respectively. The IRR favours the saline group (saline 0.40 (97.5% CI 0.20 to 0.80); p=0.003 and acidic 0.98 (97.5% CI 0.54 to 1.78); p=0.93). The trial closed before reaching target recruitment due to reduced research capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions: Early closure and small sample size limits our ability to provide a definite answer. However, the observed non-statistically significant differences over control are favourable for lower rates of LTC blockages without a concomitant rise in S-CAUTI. The results support a multinational randomised controlled trial of catheter washouts in patients with LTC to ascertain their clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN17116445.

References

Moore K, Hunter K, McGinnis R, Bacsu C, Fader M, Gray M . Do catheter washouts extend patency time in long-term indwelling urethral catheters? A randomized controlled trial of acidic washout solution, normal saline washout, or standard care. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009; 36(1):82-90. DOI: 10.1097/01.WON.0000345181.37656.de. View

Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J . Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2011; 21(1):167-76. PMC: 3254872. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2. View

Gage H, Williams P, Avery M, Murphy C, Fader M . Long-term catheter management in the community: a population-based analysis of user characteristics, service utilisation and costs in England. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2024; 25:e13. PMC: 10940055. DOI: 10.1017/S1463423624000021. View

Getliffe K . The characteristics and management of patients with recurrent blockage of long-term urinary catheters. J Adv Nurs. 1994; 20(1):140-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20010140.x. View

Gage H, Avery M, Flannery C, Williams P, Fader M . Community prevalence of long-term urinary catheters use in England. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 36(2):293-296. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22961. View

Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D . CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010; 8:18. PMC: 2860339. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18. View

Wilde M, McMahon J, Crean H, Brasch J . Exploring relationships of catheter-associated urinary tract infection and blockage in people with long-term indwelling urinary catheters. J Clin Nurs. 2016; 26(17-18):2558-2571. PMC: 5413425. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13626. View

Getliffe K . Managing recurrent urinary catheter blockage: problems, promises, and practicalities. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2003; 30(3):146-51. DOI: 10.1067/mjw.2003.120. View

Wilde M, McDonald M, Brasch J, McMahon J, Fairbanks E, Shah S . Long-term urinary catheter users self-care practices and problems. J Clin Nurs. 2013; 22(3-4):356-67. PMC: 3915411. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12042. View

10.

Bharmal M, Payne K, Atkinson M, Desrosiers M, Morisky D, Gemmen E . Validation of an abbreviated Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9) among patients on antihypertensive medications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7:36. PMC: 2678998. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-36. View

11.

Smith D, Pouwels K, Hopkins S, Naylor N, Smieszek T, Robotham J . Epidemiology and health-economic burden of urinary-catheter-associated infection in English NHS hospitals: a probabilistic modelling study. J Hosp Infect. 2019; 103(1):44-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2019.04.010. View

12.

Coast J, Flynn T, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere J . Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67(5):874-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015. View

13.

Shepherd A, Mackay W, Hagen S . Washout policies in long-term indwelling urinary catheterisation in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 3:CD004012. PMC: 6464626. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004012.pub5. View

14.

Feneley R . Long-term catheterization of the bladder: prevalence and morbidity. Br J Urol. 1996; 77(3):347-51. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.09074.x. View

15.

Tripathee S, Omar M, Abdel-Fattah M, MacLennan S . Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Expectations, Experience, and Perception of the Outcomes of Various Washout Policies in Preventing Catheter-associated Complications: Qualitative Study of the CATHETER II Trial. Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 8(1):235-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.02.010. View

16.

Muncie Jr H, Hoopes J, Damron D, Tenney J, WARREN J . Once-daily irrigation of long-term urethral catheters with normal saline. Lack of benefit. Arch Intern Med. 1989; 149(2):441-3. View

17.

Abdel-Fattah M, Johnson D, Constable L, Thomas R, Cotton S, Tripathee S . Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER.... Trials. 2022; 23(1):630. PMC: 9351274. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06577-2. View

18.

Reid S, Brocksom J, Hamid R, Ali A, Thiruchelvam N, Sahai A . British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) and Nurses (BAUN) consensus document: management of the complications of long-term indwelling catheters. BJU Int. 2021; 128(6):667-677. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15406. View

19.

Waites K, Canupp K, Roper J, Camp S, Chen Y . Evaluation of 3 methods of bladder irrigation to treat bacteriuria in persons with neurogenic bladder. J Spinal Cord Med. 2006; 29(3):217-26. PMC: 1864807. DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2006.11753877. View

20.

Cotterill N, Fowler S, Avery M, Cottenden A, Wilde M, Long A . Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ-LTCqol: A self-report quality of life questionnaire for long-term indwelling catheter users. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015; 35(3):423-8. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22729. View