|Appears in Collections:
|Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
|Peer Review Status:
|Washout policies in long-term indwelling urinary catherterization in adults: a short version Cochrane review
|Sinclair L, Hagen S & Cross S (2011) Washout policies in long-term indwelling urinary catherterization in adults: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 30 (7), pp. 1208-1212. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.21063
|Background: People requiring long-term bladder draining with an indwelling catheter can experience catheter blockage. Regimens involving different solutions can be used to wash out catheters with the aim of preventing blockage. Objectives: To determine if certain washout regimens (including no washout) are better than others in terms of effectiveness, acceptability, complications, quality of life, and economics for the management of long-term indwelling urinary catheters in adults. Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Trials Register (searched April 30, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2009), MEDLINE In-Process (April 30, 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2009), and CINAHL (December 1981 to April 2009). Additionally, we examined all reference lists of identified trials and contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. Selection Criteria: All randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing catheter washout policies (e.g., washout vs. no washout, different washout solutions, frequency, duration, volume, concentration, method of administration) in adults (16 years and above) in any setting (i.e., hospital, nursing/residential home, community) with an indwelling urethral or suprapubic catheter in place for more than 28 days. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted by three reviewers independently and compared. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook. If the trial data were not fully reported, clarification was sought from the authors. For categorical outcomes, the numbers reporting an outcome were related to the numbers at risk in each group to derive a risk ratio (RR). For continuous outcomes, means, and standard deviations were used to derive weighted mean differences (WMD). No meta-analysis of study results was possible. Results: Five trials met the inclusion criteria involving 242 patients (132 completed) in two cross-over and three parallel-group randomized controlled trials. Only three of the eight comparisons pre-stated in the review protocol were addressed in these trials. Some trials addressed more than one comparison (e.g., washout vs. no washout and one type of washout solution vs. another). The analyses reported for the two cross-over trials were inappropriate as they were based on differences between groups rather than differences within individuals receiving sequential interventions. Two parallel-group trials had limited value: one combined results for suprapubic and urethral catheters and one had data on only four participants. Only one trial was free of significant methodological limitations, but its sample size was small. Three trials compared no washout with one or more washout solution (saline or acidic solutions) and authors tended to conclude no difference in clinical outcomes between washout and no washout. In the one trial which had data of sufficient quality to allow interpretation, no difference was detected between washout and no washout groups in the rate of symptomatic urinary tract infection or time to first catheter change. Three trials compared different types of solution: saline versus acidic solutions (two trials); saline versus acidic solution versus antibiotic solution (one trial). Authors tended to report no difference between different washout solutions but the data were too few to support their conclusions. The one trial which warranted consideration concluded no difference between saline and an acidic solution in terms of symptomatic urinary tract infections or time to first catheter change. Conclusions: The data from five trials comparing differing washout policies were sparse and trials were generally of poor quality or poorly reported. The evidence was too scant to conclude whether or not washouts were beneficial. Further rigorous, high quality trials with adequate power to detect any benefit from washout rather than no washout being performed are required in the first instance. After that, trials comparing different washout solutions, washout volumes, frequencies/timings, and routes of administration are needed.
|The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
|Fulltext - Published Version
|Under Embargo until 2999-12-12 Request a copy
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.