www.incontinentsupport.org

4.4 Indwelling urinary catheters: catheter selection

For patients using a long-term indwelling urinary catheter, what is the clinical and cost effectiveness of impregnated versus hydrophilic versus silicone catheters in reducing symptomatic urinary tract infections, encrustations and/or blockages?

Why this is important

Long-term indwelling catheters (both urethral and suprapubic) are commonly used in both hospital and community care settings. Long-term catheterisation carries a significant risk of symptomatic urinary tract infection, which can lead to more serious complications. Several different types of impregnated and hydrophilic long-term indwelling catheters on the market claim to be more effective than non-coated catheters, but are also more expensive.

The clinical evidence review for the guideline revealed an absence of evidence for the effectiveness of indwelling catheters over the long term. A comparison of impregnated (for example, with silver), hydrophilic and silicone catheters is needed. The primary outcome measures should be symptomatic urinary tract infections, encrustations, blockages, cost/resource use and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures should include the mean number of days the catheter remains in situ (mean dwell time) and patient comfort

Thanks for all that stuff guys. This is all early days yet with a foley for me only 3 months so far but if I still get an infection next time it's changed even with the antibiotics 3 days before I will be asking for the silver one.
I really appreciate all the comments and suggestions from you all.
I think eventually a suprabubic will be the way to go but like others it's something for the future.
I would think in the next year or two the catheter with two balloons will be passed for over here in England so that should help things also.

Thanks again

4wheeldave.