Strategies for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults

Awaiss Ellahi, Fiona Stewart, Emily A Kidd, Rhonda Griffiths, Ritin Fernandez, Muhammad Imran Omar, Awaiss Ellahi, Fiona Stewart, Emily A Kidd, Rhonda Griffiths, Ritin Fernandez, Muhammad Imran Omar

Abstract

Background: Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling urethral catheterisation at some point during their care. However, the use of urinary catheters is associated with an increased risk of developing urinary tract infection. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. It is estimated that around 20% of hospital-acquired bacteraemias arise from the urinary tract and are associated with mortality of around 10%. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last published in 2007.

Objectives: To assess the effects of strategies for removing short-term (14 days or less) indwelling catheters in adults.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 March 2020), and reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of practices undertaken for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults for any reason in any setting.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors performed abstract and full-text screening of all relevant articles. At least two review authors independently performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction and GRADE assessment.

Main results: We included 99 trials involving 12,241 participants. We judged the majority of trials to be at low or unclear risk of selection and detection bias, with a high risk of performance bias. We also deemed most trials to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias. None of the trials reported on quality of life. The majority of participants across the trials had undergone some form of surgical procedure. Thirteen trials involving 1506 participants compared the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters at one time of day (early morning removal group between 6 am to 7 am) versus another (late night removal group between 10 pm to midnight). Catheter removal late at night may slightly reduce the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with early morning (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 10 RCTs, 1920 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference between early morning and late night removal in the risk of developing symptomatic CAUTI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the time of day makes a difference to the risk of dysuria (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.70 to 6.86; 1 RCT, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-eight trials involving 9247 participants compared shorter versus longer durations of catheterisation. Shorter durations may increase the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with longer durations (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.41; 44 trials, 5870 participants; low-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; 41 RCTs, 5759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of dysuria (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; 7 RCTs; 1398 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven trials involving 714 participants compared policies of clamping catheters versus free drainage. There may be little to no difference between clamping and free drainage in terms of the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21; 5 RCTs; 569 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or dysuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54; 1 trial, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three trials involving 402 participants compared the use of prophylactic alpha blockers versus no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain if prophylactic alpha blockers before catheter removal has any effect on the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 2 RCTs, 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials investigating prophylactic alpha blockers reported the number of participants with dysuria.

Authors' conclusions: There is some evidence to suggest the removal of indwelling urethral catheters late at night rather than early in the morning may reduce the number of people who require recatheterisation. It appears that catheter removal after shorter compared to longer durations probably reduces the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and may reduce the risk of dysuria. However, it may lead to more people requiring recatheterisation. The other evidence relating to the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and dysuria is too uncertain to allow us to draw any conclusions. Due to the low certainty of the majority of the evidence presented here, the results of further research are likely to change our findings and to have a further impact on clinical practice. This systematic review has highlighted the need for a standardised set of core outcomes, which should be measured and reported by all future trials comparing strategies for the removal of short-term urinary catheters. Future trials should also study the effects of short-term indwelling urethral catheter removal on non-surgical patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01611519 NCT02189291 NCT02739256 NCT01182714 NCT01508767 NCT02083614 NCT00606983 NCT03127280 NCT00564135 NCT02742636 NCT02765893 NCT00622076 NCT03178734 NCT00157625 NCT03646136 NCT01923129 NCT02602132 NCT03539107 NCT03668535 NCT03065855.

Conflict of interest statement

In accordance with Cochrane's Commercial Sponsorship Policy, the following declarations have been made: AE: none known FS: none known EAK: none known RG: none known RF: none known MIO: none known

Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included trials
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included trial
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison 1. Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one time of day (6 am to 7 am) versus another time of day (10 pm to midnight). Outcome 1.1. number needing to be recatheterised
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison 2. Shorter versus longer duration of catheter. Outcome: 2.1 number needing to be recatheterised
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison 2. Shorter versus longer duration of catheter. Outcome: 2.2. symptomatic catheter‐associated urinary tract infection (number of participants)
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 1: Number needing to be recatheterised
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 2: Number needing to be recatheterised: subgroup analysis based on sex
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 3: Symptomatic catheter‐associated urinary tract infection (number of participants)
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 4: Asymptomatic bacteriuria (number of participants)
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 5: Incidence of urinary retention
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 6: Difficulty in passing urine
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 7: Loin pain
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 8: Fever
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 9: Incontinence
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 10: Dysuria (number of participants)
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 11: Volume of the first void (mL)
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 13: Time to first void (hours)
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 15: Post‐void residual volume
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 16: Length of hospitalisation in days
1.18. Analysis
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1: Removal of indwelling urethral catheter at one specified time of day (10 pm to midnight) versus another specified time of day (6 am to 7 am), Outcome 18: Time between removal of catheter to discharge
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 1: Number needing to be recatheterised
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 2: Number needing to be recatheterised: subgroup analysis based on type of surgery
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 3: Number needing to be recatheterised: subgroup analysis based on sex
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 4: Number needing to be recatheterised: subgroup analysis based on antibiotic prophylaxis
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 5: Symptomatic catheter‐associated urinary tract infection (number of participants)
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 6: Symptomatic catheter‐associated urinary tract infection: post‐hoc subgroup analysis by antibiotic prophylaxis
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 7: Asymptomatic bacteruria (number of participants)
2.8. Analysis
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 8: Incidence of urinary retention
2.9. Analysis
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 9: Delayed voiding after catheter removal
2.10. Analysis
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 10: Chronic urinary retention
2.11. Analysis
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 11: Other complications of catheterisation: fever
2.12. Analysis
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 12: Other complications of catheterisation: epididymitis
2.13. Analysis
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 13: Pain or discomfort (dichotomous)
2.14. Analysis
2.14. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 14: Pain or discomfort: 0‐10 VAS (higher score = greater pain)
2.15. Analysis
2.15. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 15: Patient satisfaction
2.16. Analysis
2.16. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 16: Urinary incontinence
2.17. Analysis
2.17. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 17: Dysuria
2.18. Analysis
2.18. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 18: Volume of first void (mL)
2.19. Analysis
2.19. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 19: Time to first void (hours)
2.20. Analysis
2.20. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 20: Post‐void residual volume (mL)
2.22. Analysis
2.22. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 22: Length of hospitalisation in days
2.23. Analysis
2.23. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 23: Length of hospitalisation in days: subgrouping based on type of surgery
2.25. Analysis
2.25. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 25: Frequency of micturition
2.26. Analysis
2.26. Analysis
Comparison 2: Shorter versus longer duration of catheter, Outcome 26: Time to first ambulation (hours)
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 1: Number needing to be recatheterised
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 2: Number needing to be recatheterised: subgroup analysis based on type of surgery and sex
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 3: Symptomatic catheter‐associated urinary tract infection (number of participants)
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 4: Incidence of urinary retention (number of participants)
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 5: Dysuria (number of participants)
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 6: Volume of first void (mL)
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 7: Time to first void (minutes)
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3: Clamping versus free drainage, Outcome 9: Length of hospitalisation (days)
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: Prophylactic use of alpha blocker versus no drug or intervention, Outcome 1: Number of participants needing to be recatheterised
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: Prophylactic use of alpha blocker versus no drug or intervention, Outcome 2: Symptomatic catheter‐associated urinary tract infection (number of participants)
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4: Prophylactic use of alpha blocker versus no drug or intervention, Outcome 3: Incidence of urinary retention (number of participants)
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4: Prophylactic use of alpha blocker versus no drug or intervention, Outcome 4: Post‐void residual volume
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4: Prophylactic use of alpha blocker versus no drug or intervention, Outcome 5: Length of hospitalisation in days

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe