Is It Really the Foley? A Systematic Review of Bladder Management and Infection Risk.

IF 2.4 Q1 REHABILITATION
Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-15 DOI:10.46292/sci22-00009
Matthew Davis, Lavina Jethani, Emily Robbins, Mahmut Kaner
{"title":"Is It Really the Foley? A Systematic Review of Bladder Management and Infection Risk.","authors":"Matthew Davis, Lavina Jethani, Emily Robbins, Mahmut Kaner","doi":"10.46292/sci22-00009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The belief that intermittent catheterization results in fewer infections than indwelling catheters is commonly expressed in the spinal cord injury literature. Some practice guidelines strongly recommend intermittent over indwelling catheterization due to concerns about infections and other complications. However, studies on this topic are of low quality. Guidelines from the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine suggest the data regarding infection risk are mixed, and they do not recommend one bladder management method over the other.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare risk of bias in studies reporting higher rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) with indwelling catheters to studies that found equal rates of UTI between indwelling and intermittent catheterization, and to describe implications in clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and SCOPUS databases from January 1, 1980, to September 15, 2020, was conducted. Eligible studies compared symptomatic UTI rates between indwelling and intermittent catheterization. We used a risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate each study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four studies were identified. Only three of these reported significantly higher UTI risk with indwelling catheters, and all three demonstrated a critical risk of bias. More than half of the studies reported differences in UTI risk of less than 20% between the two methods. Studies with larger (nonsignificant) differences favoring intermittent catheterization were more susceptible to bias from confounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The hypothesis that indwelling catheters cause more UTIs than intermittent catheterization is not supported by the scientific literature. Most studies failed to demonstrate a significant difference in UTI risk, and studies with nonsignificant trends favoring intermittent catheterization were more susceptible to bias from confounding. Perceived risk of infection should not influence a patient's choice of catheter type.</p>","PeriodicalId":46769,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation","volume":"29 1","pages":"94-107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936901/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46292/sci22-00009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The belief that intermittent catheterization results in fewer infections than indwelling catheters is commonly expressed in the spinal cord injury literature. Some practice guidelines strongly recommend intermittent over indwelling catheterization due to concerns about infections and other complications. However, studies on this topic are of low quality. Guidelines from the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine suggest the data regarding infection risk are mixed, and they do not recommend one bladder management method over the other.

Objectives: To compare risk of bias in studies reporting higher rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) with indwelling catheters to studies that found equal rates of UTI between indwelling and intermittent catheterization, and to describe implications in clinical decision-making.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and SCOPUS databases from January 1, 1980, to September 15, 2020, was conducted. Eligible studies compared symptomatic UTI rates between indwelling and intermittent catheterization. We used a risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate each study.

Results: Twenty-four studies were identified. Only three of these reported significantly higher UTI risk with indwelling catheters, and all three demonstrated a critical risk of bias. More than half of the studies reported differences in UTI risk of less than 20% between the two methods. Studies with larger (nonsignificant) differences favoring intermittent catheterization were more susceptible to bias from confounding.

Conclusion: The hypothesis that indwelling catheters cause more UTIs than intermittent catheterization is not supported by the scientific literature. Most studies failed to demonstrate a significant difference in UTI risk, and studies with nonsignificant trends favoring intermittent catheterization were more susceptible to bias from confounding. Perceived risk of infection should not influence a patient's choice of catheter type.

真的是 Foley 吗?膀胱管理与感染风险的系统回顾。
背景:脊髓损伤文献普遍认为间歇性导尿比留置导尿感染更少。出于对感染和其他并发症的担忧,一些实践指南强烈建议采用间歇性导尿,而不是留置导尿。但是,有关这一主题的研究质量不高。脊髓医学联合会(Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine)的指南表明,有关感染风险的数据好坏参半,他们并不推荐一种膀胱管理方法而非另一种:比较报告留置导尿管尿路感染(UTI)发生率较高的研究与发现留置导尿管和间歇导尿管UTI发生率相同的研究的偏倚风险,并说明其对临床决策的影响:方法:系统检索了从 1980 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 9 月 15 日的 PubMed、CINAHL、Embase 和 SCOPUS 数据库。符合条件的研究比较了留置导尿和间歇导尿的症状性 UTI 发生率。我们使用偏倚风险评估工具对每项研究进行了评估:结果:共确定了 24 项研究。其中只有三项研究报告了留置导尿管的 UTI 风险明显更高,而且这三项研究都存在严重的偏倚风险。半数以上的研究报告两种方法的 UTI 风险差异不到 20%。差异较大(不显著)的研究更倾向于间歇性导尿,更容易受到混杂因素的影响:结论:科学文献并不支持留置导尿管比间歇导尿管导致更多 UTI 的假设。大多数研究未能证明 UTI 风险存在显著差异,而倾向于间歇导管术的无显著趋势的研究更容易受到混杂因素的影响。对感染风险的认识不应影响患者对导管类型的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Now in our 22nd year as the leading interdisciplinary journal of SCI rehabilitation techniques and care. TSCIR is peer-reviewed, practical, and features one key topic per issue. Published topics include: mobility, sexuality, genitourinary, functional assessment, skin care, psychosocial, high tetraplegia, physical activity, pediatric, FES, sci/tbi, electronic medicine, orthotics, secondary conditions, research, aging, legal issues, women & sci, pain, environmental effects, life care planning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信