Catheter-Associated Urinary Infections and Consequences of Using Coated versus Non-Coated Urethral Catheters—Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Vineet Gauhar, Daniele Castellani, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun Teoh, Carlotta Nedbal, Giuseppe Chiacchio, Andrew Gabrielson, Flávio Lobo Heldwein, Marcelo Langer Wroclawski, Jean de la Rosette, Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva, Andrea Benedetto Galosi, Bhaskar Somani
Abstract
Coated urethral catheters were introduced in clinical practice to reduce the risk of catheter-acquired urinary tract infection (CAUTI). We aimed to systematically review the incidence of CAUTI and adverse effects in randomized clinical trials of patients requiring indwelling bladder catheterization by comparing coated vs. non-coated catheters. This review was performed according to the 2020 PRISMA framework. The incidence of CAUTI and catheter-related adverse events was evaluated using the Cochran−Mantel−Haenszel method with a random-effects model and reported as the risk ratio (RR), 95% CI, and p-values. Significance was set at p < 0.05 and a 95% CI. Twelve studies including 36,783 patients were included for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the CAUTI rate between coated and non-coated catheters (RR 0.87 95% CI 0.75−1.00, p = 0.06). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the risk of CAUTI was significantly lower in the coated group compared with the non-coated group among patients requiring long-term catheterization (>14 days) (RR 0.82 95% CI 0.68−0.99, p = 0.04). There was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of the need for catheter exchange or the incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms after catheter removal. The benefit of coated catheters in reducing CAUTI risk among patients requiring long-term catheterization should be balanced against the increased direct costs to health care systems when compared to non-coated catheters.