Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: synopsis of the CATHETER II RCT.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Diana Johnson, Sheela Tripathee, David Cooper, Lynda Constable, Muhammad Imran Omar, Sara MacLennan, Seonaidh Cotton, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Suzanne Evans, Hashim Hashim, Mary Kilonzo, James Larcombe, Paul Little, Graeme MacLennan, Peter Murchie, Phyo Kyaw Myint, James N'Dow, John Norrie, Catherine Paterson, Karen Powell, Graham Scotland, Nikesh Thiruchelvam, Amanda Young, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah
{"title":"Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: synopsis of the CATHETER II RCT.","authors":"Diana Johnson, Sheela Tripathee, David Cooper, Lynda Constable, Muhammad Imran Omar, Sara MacLennan, Seonaidh Cotton, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Suzanne Evans, Hashim Hashim, Mary Kilonzo, James Larcombe, Paul Little, Graeme MacLennan, Peter Murchie, Phyo Kyaw Myint, James N'Dow, John Norrie, Catherine Paterson, Karen Powell, Graham Scotland, Nikesh Thiruchelvam, Amanda Young, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah","doi":"10.3310/GJMA0724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approximately 90,000 people in the United Kingdom have a long-term catheter. Use of long-term catheters is associated with common adverse events including blockage of the catheter and symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Washout solutions are often used prophylactically to prevent these adverse events, but evidence for the benefits and potential harms is insufficient.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Does the addition of weekly prophylactic washouts of the catheter to standard long-term catheter care improve the outcomes of adults with long-term catheter.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>A pragmatic three-arm multicentre open-label superiority randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Adults with long-term catheter in situ (any route or type) with no plans to discontinue long-term catheter use were recruited in a community setting in the United Kingdom. Participants received training to self-administer the washouts, with/without the assistance of a carer.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to standard long-term catheter care plus weekly prophylactic saline washouts; weekly prophylactic acidic washouts; or no prophylactic washouts.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary clinical and health economic outcomes were catheter blockage requiring intervention (/1000 catheter days) up to 24 months post randomisation and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Outcome data were patient reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty of the planned 600 participants were recruited (26 saline; 27 acidic; 27 control). There was a reduction in incidence of blockages requiring treatment (per 1000 catheter days) from 20.92 (control) to 9.96 (saline) and 10.53 (acidic). The incidence rate ratio favoured the washout groups [saline 0.65 (97.5% confidence interval 0.24 to 1.77); <i>p</i> = 0.33 and acidic 0.59 (97.5% confidence interval 0.22 to 1.63); <i>p</i> = 0.25] but was not statistically significant. There was a reduction in the secondary outcome of symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotic use (per 1000 catheter days) from 8.05 (control) to 3.71 (saline) and 6.72 (acidic). The incidence rate ratio favoured the washout groups [saline 0.40 (97.5% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.80); <i>p</i> = 0.003 and acidic 0.98 (97.5% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.78); <i>p</i> = 0.93]; however, the significance should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size. There were few adverse events. Quality-of-life outcomes were similar between groups. Due to the low sample size, the health economic outcomes could not be analysed. The embedded qualitative work demonstrated that the study design was feasible and acceptable to healthcare professionals and participants involved with the trial. Healthcare professionals perceived the training of participants to have minimal impact on healthcare resources and participants were empowered to self-manage the washouts and integrate it into their routine care.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>COVID-19 led to recruitment difficulties and early termination of the study by the funder. Sample size was not met.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a suggestion that regular prophylactic washout use may result in the reduction of catheter blockage and symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection. However, the results are inconclusive due to the small sample size. Participants found the washouts acceptable to use and could self-manage the washouts with training.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>The study design was acceptable to involved participants and healthcare workers. We recommend a multinational randomised controlled trial to produce evidence on the clinical effectiveness of long-term catheter washout policies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/30/02.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"30 26","pages":"1-43"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13051322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GJMA0724","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Approximately 90,000 people in the United Kingdom have a long-term catheter. Use of long-term catheters is associated with common adverse events including blockage of the catheter and symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Washout solutions are often used prophylactically to prevent these adverse events, but evidence for the benefits and potential harms is insufficient.

Objectives: Does the addition of weekly prophylactic washouts of the catheter to standard long-term catheter care improve the outcomes of adults with long-term catheter.

Design and methods: A pragmatic three-arm multicentre open-label superiority randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study.

Setting and participants: Adults with long-term catheter in situ (any route or type) with no plans to discontinue long-term catheter use were recruited in a community setting in the United Kingdom. Participants received training to self-administer the washouts, with/without the assistance of a carer.

Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to standard long-term catheter care plus weekly prophylactic saline washouts; weekly prophylactic acidic washouts; or no prophylactic washouts.

Main outcome measures: The primary clinical and health economic outcomes were catheter blockage requiring intervention (/1000 catheter days) up to 24 months post randomisation and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Outcome data were patient reported.

Results: Eighty of the planned 600 participants were recruited (26 saline; 27 acidic; 27 control). There was a reduction in incidence of blockages requiring treatment (per 1000 catheter days) from 20.92 (control) to 9.96 (saline) and 10.53 (acidic). The incidence rate ratio favoured the washout groups [saline 0.65 (97.5% confidence interval 0.24 to 1.77); p = 0.33 and acidic 0.59 (97.5% confidence interval 0.22 to 1.63); p = 0.25] but was not statistically significant. There was a reduction in the secondary outcome of symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotic use (per 1000 catheter days) from 8.05 (control) to 3.71 (saline) and 6.72 (acidic). The incidence rate ratio favoured the washout groups [saline 0.40 (97.5% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.80); p = 0.003 and acidic 0.98 (97.5% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.78); p = 0.93]; however, the significance should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size. There were few adverse events. Quality-of-life outcomes were similar between groups. Due to the low sample size, the health economic outcomes could not be analysed. The embedded qualitative work demonstrated that the study design was feasible and acceptable to healthcare professionals and participants involved with the trial. Healthcare professionals perceived the training of participants to have minimal impact on healthcare resources and participants were empowered to self-manage the washouts and integrate it into their routine care.

Limitations: COVID-19 led to recruitment difficulties and early termination of the study by the funder. Sample size was not met.

Conclusions: There is a suggestion that regular prophylactic washout use may result in the reduction of catheter blockage and symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection. However, the results are inconclusive due to the small sample size. Participants found the washouts acceptable to use and could self-manage the washouts with training.

Future work: The study design was acceptable to involved participants and healthcare workers. We recommend a multinational randomised controlled trial to produce evidence on the clinical effectiveness of long-term catheter washout policies.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/30/02.

比较各种冲洗策略在预防长期使用导管的成人导管相关并发症中的临床和成本效益:导管II RCT摘要。
背景:在英国大约有90000人使用长期导尿管。长期导尿管的使用与常见的不良事件相关,包括导尿管堵塞和症状性导尿管相关的尿路感染。冲洗液通常用于预防这些不良事件,但其益处和潜在危害的证据不足。目的:在标准的长期导管护理中加入每周预防性冲洗导管是否能改善长期导管成人的预后?设计和方法:一个实用的三臂多中心开放标签优势随机对照试验嵌入定性研究。环境和参与者:在英国的一个社区环境中招募了长期导管原位(任何途径或类型)且不打算停止长期导管使用的成年人。参与者接受了自我管理冲洗的培训,有或没有护理人员的帮助。干预措施:参与者以1:1的比例随机分配至标准的长期导管护理加每周预防性生理盐水冲洗;每周预防性酸性冲洗;或者没有预防性冲洗。主要结局指标:主要临床和健康经济结局是随机分组后24个月需要干预的导管堵塞(/1000导管天)和每质量调整生命年增加的成本。结果数据由患者报告。结果:计划的600名参与者中有80人被招募(生理盐水26人,酸性27人,对照27人)。需要治疗的阻塞发生率(每1000导管天)从20.92(对照组)减少到9.96(生理盐水组)和10.53(酸性)。发生率比偏向洗脱组[生理盐水0.65(97.5%置信区间0.24 ~ 1.77);P = 0.33,酸性0.59(97.5%置信区间0.22 ~ 1.63);P = 0.25],但无统计学意义。需要使用抗生素的症状性导尿管相关尿路感染的次要结局(每1000导尿管天)从8.05(对照组)减少到3.71(生理盐水)和6.72(酸性)。发生率比倾向于洗脱组[生理盐水0.40(97.5%置信区间0.20 ~ 0.80);P = 0.003,酸性0.98(97.5%置信区间0.54 ~ 1.78);P = 0.93];然而,考虑到样本量小,应该谨慎地解释这一意义。几乎没有不良事件发生。两组之间的生活质量结果相似。由于样本量小,健康经济结果无法分析。嵌入的定性工作表明,研究设计是可行的,并为医疗保健专业人员和参与试验的参与者所接受。医疗保健专业人员认为,对参与者的培训对医疗保健资源的影响最小,参与者有权自我管理冲洗,并将其纳入日常护理。限制:COVID-19导致招募困难和资助者提前终止研究。没有达到样本量。结论:定期预防性冲洗可减少导尿管堵塞和症状性导尿管相关尿路感染。然而,由于样本量小,结果不确定。参与者发现冲洗可以接受使用,并可以通过培训自我管理冲洗。未来的工作:研究设计是可接受的参与者和医护人员。我们建议进行多国随机对照试验,为长期导管冲洗政策的临床有效性提供证据。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估项目资助的独立研究,奖励号为17/30/02。
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
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书