The recent blog by Sarah Chapman, aimed at nurses, reviews some of the evidence raised in Cochrane’s report on short-term catheterisation. In her blog, Sarah highlights the ineffectiveness of some catheters types in the reduction of CAUTI and also goes on to say that some, increase patient discomfort…
So is there an alternative?
Camstent are optimistic that the coating they are currently developing will address issues around infection and patient comfort. They aim to reduce biofilm formation on indwelling urinary catheters as this is regarded as a major component of the pathophysiology of catheter associated urinary tract infection (see http://iai.asm.org/content/78/10/4166.full). They are also very optimistic that their coating will will be exceptionally smooth and hope that through testing, they aim to demonstrate a reduction in insertion/withdrawal force in comparison to it’s un-coated counterpart.
If you are interested in Sarah’s blog, please visit (see Cochrane database of systematic reviews http://www.evidentlycochrane.net/category/about/)
In her blog, Sarah discusses current catheters and their performance against CAUTI, she states that
‘There is high quality evidence that silver alloy (antiseptic coated) catheters did not reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI, compared with standard catheters, and that there was a only a slight reduction with nitrofurazone-impregnated (antimicrobial-impregnated) catheters, possibly too small to be clinically important. In addition, nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters were associated with more discomfort. Both these types of impregnated catheter are more expensive than standard catheters’.