A Real-world Data Analysis of Intermittent Catheterization, Showing the Impact of Prelubricated Versus Hydrophilic Catheter Use on the Occurrence of Symptoms Suggestive of Urinary Tract Infections.
Hydrophilic
Intermittent urinary catheter
Prelubricated
Propensity score matching
Urinary tract infection
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
accepted:
16
02
2022
entrez:
2
5
2022
pubmed:
3
5
2022
medline:
3
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systematic reviews have highlighted the lack of evidence on choosing the type of intermittent urinary catheter (IUC) with regard to the occurrence of urinary tract infections (UTIs). To describe the incidence and frequency of symptoms suggestive of UTIs (ssUTIs) for prelubricated versus hydrophilic IUCs. An observational study of a patient database compiled by UK general practitioners was conducted. The primary outcome measures were the proportion of patients with at least one ssUTI (prescription of a nonspecific antibiotic with a UTI-related diagnosis, or prescription of a UTI-specific antibiotic) and the mean number of ssUTIs per affected patient in the 12 mo following the index IUC prescription. Comparable prelubricated ("PRELUBE") and hydrophilic ("HYDRO") catheter groups were obtained with 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 5296 patients were included (prelubricated: When choosing a coated IUC, physicians and patients should not rule out PRELUBE IUCs for safety reasons alone. Using real-world data compiled by UK general practitioners, we described the incidence and frequency of symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infection in people who were using various types of intermittent urinary catheters. When the same type of prelubricated catheter was used throughout the study period, the incidence of these symptoms was lower than for hydrophilic catheters.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Systematic reviews have highlighted the lack of evidence on choosing the type of intermittent urinary catheter (IUC) with regard to the occurrence of urinary tract infections (UTIs).
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To describe the incidence and frequency of symptoms suggestive of UTIs (ssUTIs) for prelubricated versus hydrophilic IUCs.
Design setting and participants
UNASSIGNED
An observational study of a patient database compiled by UK general practitioners was conducted.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
UNASSIGNED
The primary outcome measures were the proportion of patients with at least one ssUTI (prescription of a nonspecific antibiotic with a UTI-related diagnosis, or prescription of a UTI-specific antibiotic) and the mean number of ssUTIs per affected patient in the 12 mo following the index IUC prescription. Comparable prelubricated ("PRELUBE") and hydrophilic ("HYDRO") catheter groups were obtained with 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).
Results and limitations
UNASSIGNED
A total of 5296 patients were included (prelubricated:
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
When choosing a coated IUC, physicians and patients should not rule out PRELUBE IUCs for safety reasons alone.
Patient summary
UNASSIGNED
Using real-world data compiled by UK general practitioners, we described the incidence and frequency of symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infection in people who were using various types of intermittent urinary catheters. When the same type of prelubricated catheter was used throughout the study period, the incidence of these symptoms was lower than for hydrophilic catheters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35495281
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.02.008
pii: S2666-1683(22)00042-8
pmc: PMC9051966
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
79-87Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Références
Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 Aug 25;9(9):
pubmed: 32854205
PM R. 2011 May;3(5):408-17
pubmed: 21570027
Indian J Urol. 2010 Apr;26(2):230-5
pubmed: 20877602
Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):324-33
pubmed: 26304502
BMC Urol. 2017 Jan 10;17(1):4
pubmed: 28073354
Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 Jul;14(7):E281-E289
pubmed: 32432528
Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017 Dec;31(4):673-688
pubmed: 29079155
Br J Nurs. 2012 Apr 12-25;21(7):392, 384, 396-8
pubmed: 22585015
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Apr;27(4):1240-1257
pubmed: 27460539
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020 Mar/Apr;47(2):140-165
pubmed: 32118802
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Sep 5;113(35-36):597-603
pubmed: 27658473
Ther Adv Urol. 2019 May 02;11:1756287218814382
pubmed: 31105772
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Jun 26;33(34):e213
pubmed: 30127705
Indian J Orthop. 2011 Mar;45(2):141-7
pubmed: 21430869
Am J Med. 2020 Feb;133(2):178-181
pubmed: 31618617
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):465-475
pubmed: 28767357
Spinal Cord. 2016 Sep;54(9):682-6
pubmed: 26620878
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2293-2297
pubmed: 27959688