These guidelines advise health professionals and providers on preventing infections associated with the use of short-term indwelling urethral catheters. They are based on the best critically appraised evidence currently available. The type and class of supporting evidence explicitly linked to each recommendation is described. All recommendations are endorsed equally and none is regarded as optional. These recommendations are not detailed procedural protocols and need to be incorporated into local guidelines (Pratt et al, 2007).
These guidelines advise health professionals and providers on preventing infections associated with the use of
short-term indwelling urethral catheters. They are based on the best critically appraised evidence currently available. The
type and class of supporting evidence explicitly linked to each recommendation is described. All recommendations are
endorsed equally and none is regarded as optional. These recommendations are not detailed procedural protocols and need to
be incorporated into local guidelines (Pratt et al, 2007).
The guidance applies to adults and children aged one year and older and should be read in conjunction with the
guidance on Standard Principles (articles 1 and 2 in this series). The recommendations are divided into five distinct
interventions:
- Assessing the need for catheterisation;
- Selection of catheter type and system;
- Catheter insertion;
- Catheter maintenance; and
- Education of patients, relatives and healthcare workers.
Background and contextCatheter associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is the most common nosocomial infection. Most bacteria
causing these infections gain access to the urinary tract either extraluminally or intraluminally. Extraluminal
contamination may occur as the catheter is inserted, from the healthcare worker's hands or the patient's own colonic or
perineal flora. It is also thought to occur by microorganisms ascending from the perineum. Intraluminal contamination
occurs by reflux of bacteria from a contaminated urine drainage bag.
Bacteria quickly develop into colonies known as biofilms, which adhere to the catheter surface and drainage
bag and encase themselves in an exopolymeric material. Such bacteria are morphologically and physiologically different from
free-living planktonic bacteria. Bacteria in biofilms have considerable survival advantages over free-floating organisms,
being extremely resistant to antibiotic therapy.
These biofilms cause further problems if the bacteria produce the enzyme urase, such as
Proteus
mirabilis. The urine then becomes alkaline, causing the crystallisation of calcium and magnesium phosphate within it.
This is incorporated into the biofilm, resulting in encrustation of the catheter. Encrustation is generally associated with
long-term catheterisation, as it has a direct relationship with the length of catheterisation.
Assessing the need for catheterisationThere is consistent evidence that a significant number of healthcare-associated infections in hospital are
related to urinary catheterisation (Ward et al, 1997; Wong and Hooton, 1983; Dieckhaus and Garibaldi, 1998; Kunin, 1997).
The risk of infection is associated with the method and duration of catheterisation, the quality of catheter
care and host susceptibility. Urinary catheterisation is a frequent intervention during clinical care in hospital,
affecting a significant number of patients, and the highest incidence of infection is associated with indwelling urethral
catheterisation (Stamm, 1998). Many of these infections are serious and lead to significant morbidity - 20-30% of
catheterised patients develop bacteriuria, of whom 2-6% develop symptoms of CAUTI (Stamm, 1998).
The risk of acquiring bacteriuria is approximately 5% for each day of catheterisation (Garibaldi et al, 1982;
1980). Of patients with a CAUTI, 1-4% develops bacteraemia and 13-30% of these die (Ward, 1997; Wong and Hooton, 1983).
Duration of catheterisation is strongly associated with risk of infection, i.e., the longer the catheter is in place, the
higher the incidence of urinary tract infection Stamm, 1998; Garibaldi et al 1982; 1980; Saint and Lipsky, 1999).
Advice from best practice emphasises the importance of documenting all procedures involving the catheter or
drainage system in patients' records (Ward et al, 1997) and providing patients with adequate information in relation to the
need for catheterisation and details of the insertion, maintenance and removal of their catheter (Ward et al, 1997; Mallett
and Bailey, 1996).There is some evidence to suggest that computer management systems improve documentation and in so doing
reduce the length of time catheters are in situ (Cornia et al, 2003).
| UC1
| Only use indwelling urethral catheters after considering alternative methods of management.
| Class D/GPP
|
| UC2
| Document the need for catheterisation, catheter insertion and care.
| Class D/GPP
|
| UC3
| Review regularly the patient's clinical need for continuing urinary catheterisation and remove the
catheter as soon as possible.
| Class D/GPP
|
Selection of catheter typeCurrent evidence-based guidelines (Pratt et al, 2001) identified three experimental studies that compared the
use of latex with silicone catheters (Lopez-Lopez et al, 1991; Nickel et al, 1989; Talja et al, 1990); no significant
difference in the incidence of bacteriuria was found. Four studies compared the use of silver-coated (silver alloy or
silver oxide) catheters with silicone, hydrogel or Teflon latex (Riley et al, 1995; Jpohnson et al, 1990, Liedberg et al,
1990; Liedberg and Lundeberg, 1990). A systematic review and meta-analysis of these and other studies found that silver
alloy (but not silver oxide) catheters were associated with a lower incidence of bacteriuria (Saint and Lipsky, 1999; Saint
et al, 1998).
New evidence related to the efficacy of using urinary catheters coated or impregnated with antiseptic or
antimicrobial agents has emerged since our original review in 2000. Two subsequent reviews (Pellowe et al, 2004; 2003),
together with the current update review, identified four systematic reviews and one meta-analysis that examined this issue
(Brosnahan et al, 2004; Johnson et al, 2006; Saint et al, 1998; Dunn et al, 2000; Niel-Weise et al, 2002).
In general, all five studies suggested antiseptic-impregnated or antimicrobial-coated urinary catheters can
significantly prevent or delay the onset of CAUTI compared with standard untreated catheters. However, the consensus was
that the individual studies reviewed were generally of poor quality; for instance in one case (Saint et al, 1998)only eight
studies out of 117 met the inclusion criteria and in another (Niel-Weise et al 2002), of six reports describing seven
trials only one scored 5 in the quality assessment, while the others scored only 1.
Studies investigating a wide range of coated or impregnated catheters are explored in the new evidence
including: catheters coated or impregnated with: silver alloy (Brosnahan et al, 2004; Saint et al, 1998; Niel-Weise et al,
2002; Verleyen et al, 1998; Karcmer et al, 2000; Saint et al, 2000; Newton et al; 2002; Gentry and Cope, 2005; Madeo et al,
2004; Rupp et al, 2004); silver oxide (Saint et al, 1998); gendine (Cahiban et al, 2000); gentamicin (Cho et al, 2003) and
silver-hydroge (Thobon et al, 2000; Lai, 2002; Gaonkar et al, 2003)l; minocycline (Darouche et al, 2003); rifampicin
(Darouche et al, 2003); chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine (Gaonkar et al, 2003); chlorhexideine-sulfadiazine-triclosan
(Gaonkar et al, 2003); nitrofurazone (Gaonkar et al, 2003); and nitrofuroxone (Al-Habdan et al, 2003).
New evidence suggests that catheters coated with silver alloy are clinically effective in reducing the
incidence of CAUTI, but many studies are of poor methodological quality. Consequently there remains inconclusive evidence
to recommend their use in preference to other types of catheter at this time.
Despite their unit cost, there is a suggestion that these devices might be a cost-effective option if overall
numbers of infections are significantly reduced through their use. However, the few studies that have explored the cost
benefit/effectiveness of using these devices have also been inconclusive (Saint et al, 2000; Gentry and Cope, 2005; Rupp et
al, 2004; Lai, 2002).
Evidence from best practice indicates that the incidence of CAUTI in patients catheterised for a short time
(up to one week) is not influenced by any particular type of catheter material (Pomfret, 1996; Kunin, 1997). However, many
practitioners have strong preferences for one type of catheter over another.
This preference is often based on clinical experience, patient assessment, and which materials induce the
least allergicresponse. Smaller gauge catheters with a 10 ml balloon minimise urethral trauma, mucosal irritation and
residual urine in the bladder, all factors that predispose to CAUTI (Dieckhaus and Garibaldi, 1998; Roe and Brocklehurst
1987). However, in adults that have recently undergone urological surgery larger gauge catheters may be indicated to allow
for the passage of blood clots.
| UC4
| Choice of catheter material will depend on clinical experience, patient assessment and anticipated
duration of catheterisation.
| Class D |
| UC5
| Select the smallest gauge catheter that will allow free urinary outflow. A catheter with a 10 ml
balloon should be used in adults. Urological patients may require larger gauge sizes and balloons.
| Class D |
Catheter insertionCatheterisation is a skilled aseptic procedure. Despite evidence from one systematic review (Dunn et al, 2000)
suggesting that the use of aseptic technique has not demonstrated a reduction in the rate of CAUTI, principles of good
practice, clinical guidanceWard et al, 1997; Wong and Hooton, 1983)and expert opinion (Dieckhaus and garibaldi, 1998;
Stamm, 1998; Kass and Schneiderman, 1957; Desuatels et al, 1962; Kunin and McCormack, 1966; Kunin, 1997; Garibaldi et al,
1974), together with findings from another systematic review (Saint and Lipsky, 1999) agree that urinary catheters must be
inserted using sterile equipment and an aseptic technique.
Expert opinion indicates that there is no advantage in using antiseptic preparations for cleansing the
urethral meatus prior to catheter insertion (Dunn et al, 2000; Kunin and McCormack, 1997). Urethral trauma and discomfort
will be minimised by using an appropriate sterile, single-use lubricant or anaesthetic gel. Ensuring healthcare
practitioners are trained and competent in the insertion of urinary catheters will minimise trauma, discomfort and the
potential for CAUTI (Ward et al, 1997; Dieckhaus and Garibaldi, 1998; Kunin and McCormack, 1997; Garibaldi et al, 1974).
| UC6
| Catheterisation is an aseptic procedure. Ensure that health care workers are trained and competent
to carry out urethral catheterisation.
| Class D
|
| UC7
| Clean the urethral meatus with sterile normal saline prior to the insertion of the catheter.
| Class D
|
| UC8
| Use an appropriate lubricant from a sterile single use container to minimise urethral trauma and
infection.
| Class D
|
Catheter maintenanceMaintaining a sterile, continuously closed urinary drainage system is central to the prevention of CAUTI
(Thornton and Andriole, 1970; Kunin and McCormack, 1966; Gillespie et al, 1983; Ward et al, 1997; Dieckhaus and Garibaldi,
1998; Wong and Hooton, 1983). The risk of infection reduces from 97% with an open system to 8-15% with a sterile closed
system (Gillespie et al, 1964; Garibalsi et al, 1974; Kunin, 1997).
Breaches in the closed system such as unnecessary emptying of the urinary drainage bag or taking a urine
sample, will increase the risk of CAUTI and should be avoided (Ward et al, 1997; Kunin, 1997; Platt et al, 1983).Hands must
be decontaminated and clean, non-sterile gloves worn before manipulation. A systematic review (Dunn et al, 2000) suggested
that sealed (for example taped, pre-sealed) drainage systems contribute to preventing bacteriuria.
There is limited evidence as to how often catheter bags should be changed. One study showed higher rates of
symptomatic and asymptomatic CAUTI where associated with a three-day urinary drainage bag change regimen when compared to
no routine change regimen (Keerasuntonpong, et al, 2003).
Best practice suggests changing only when necessary, that is according to either manufacturers'
recommendations or the patient's clinical need (Ward et al, 1997; Wong and Hooton, 1983). Reflux of urine is associated
with infection and consequently, drainage bags should be positioned in a way that prevents back-flow of urine (Ward et al,
1997; Dieckhaus and Garibaldi, 1998). It is also recommended that urinary drainage bags should be hung on an appropriate
stand that prevents contact with the floor (Kunin, 1997).
A number of studies have investigated the addition of disinfectants and antimicrobials to drainage bags as a
way of preventing CAUTI (Saint and Lipsky, 1999). Three acceptable studies (Sweet et al, 1985; Maizels and Shaeffer, 1980;
Thompson et al, 1984) from our original systematic review (Pratt et al, 2001) demonstrated no reduction in the incidence of
bacteriuria following the addition of hydrogen peroxide or chlorhexidine to urinary drainage bags. A systematic review
supports these findings in that it suggests that adding bacterial solutions to drainage bags has no effect on catheter
associated infection (Dunn et al, 2000).
| UC9
| Connect indwelling urethral catheters to a sterile closed urinary drainage system.
| Class A |
| UC10
| Ensure that the connection between the catheter and the urinary drainage system is not broken
except for good clinical reasons, e.g., changing the bag in line with manufacturer's recommendation.
| Class A |
| UC11
| Decontaminate hands and wear a new pair of clean, non-sterile gloves before manipulating a
patient's catheter and decontaminate hands after removing gloves.
| Class D |
| UC12
| Obtain urine samples from a sampling port using an aseptic technique.
| Class D/GPP |
| UC13
| Position urinary drainage bags below the level of the bladder on a stand that prevents contact
with the floor.
| Class D/GPP |
| UC14
| Empty the urinary drainage bag frequently enough to maintain urine flow and prevent reflux. Use a
separate and clean container for each patient and avoid contact between the urinary drainage tap and container.
| Class D/GPP |
| UC15
| Do not add antiseptic or antimicrobial solutions into urinary drainage bags.
| Class A |
| UC16
| Do not change catheters unnecessarily or as part of routine practice except where necessary to
adhere to the manufacturer's guidance.
| Class D/GPP |
Appropriate maintenance minimises infectionsMeatal cleansing with antiseptic solutions is unnecessaryOur original systematic review (Pratt et al, 2001) considered six acceptable studies that compared meatal
cleansing with a variety of antiseptic/antimicrobial agents or soap and water. No reduction was demonstrated in bacteriuria
when using any of these preparations for meatal care compared with routine bathing or showering (Cleland et al, 1971; Burke
et al,1983; 1981; Classen et al 1991a; 1991b; Huth et al, 1992). Our subsequent reviews (Pellow et al, 2004; 2003) revealed
two studies (Dunn et al, 2000; Webster et al, 2001) that support these findings in that the outcomes indicate that the use
of antiseptics provides no benefit in respect of meatal/peri-urethral hygiene.
Expert opinion (Dieckhaus and Garibaldi, 1998; Wong and Hooton, 1983; Kunin, 1997) and another systematic
review (Saint and Lipsky, 1999) support the view that vigorous meatal cleansing is not necessary and may increase the risk
of infection and that daily routine bathing or showering is all that is needed to maintain meatal hygiene.
| UC17
| Routine daily personal hygiene is all that is needed to maintain meatal hygiene.
| Class A
|
Irrigation, instillation and washout do not prevent infectionNone of the evidence in our systematic review demonstrated any beneficial effect of bladder irrigation,
instillation or washout with a variety of antiseptic or antimicrobial agents in preventing catheter-associated infection
(Pratt et al, 2001; Davies et al, 1987; Ball et al, 1987; Jones and Hasan, 1988; Schneeberger et al, 1992; Warren et al,
1978; Muncie et al, 1989; Kennedy et al, 1992; Cox et al, 1966; Getliffe, 1994a; Kennedy and Brocklehurst, 1992; Saint and
Lipsky, 1999). However, three studies suggest that an acid washout solution (Suby G) is effective in reducing catheter
encrustation (Getliffe et al, 2000; Kennedy and Brocklehurst, 1992; Getliffe, 1994b).
Evidence from best practice supports the findings in respect of bladder irrigation, instillation and washout
and indicates that the introduction of such agents may have local toxic effects and contribute to the development of
resistant microorganisms. However, continuous or intermittent bladder irrigation may be indicated during urological surgery
or to manage catheter obstruction (Wong and Hooton, 1983; Saint and Lipsky, 1999; Dickhaus and garibaldi, 1998; Ward et al,
1997; Kunin, 1997).
| UC18
| Bladder irrigation, instillation and washout should not be used to prevent catheter-associated
infection.
| Class A |
Education of patients, relatives and healthcare workersGiven the frequency of urinary catheterisation in hospital patients and the associated risk of CAUTI, it is
important that patients, their relatives and healthcare workers responsible for catheter insertion and management are
educated about infection prevention. All those involved must be aware of the signs and symptoms of infection and how to
access expert help when difficulties arise.Healthcare professionals must be confident and proficient in associated
procedures.
| UC19
| Healthcare workers must be trained in catheter insertion and maintenance.
| Class D/GPP
|
| UC20
| Patients and relatives should be educated about their role in preventing urinary tract infection.
| Class D/GPP
|
Areas for further researchIn developing the recommendations we identified several areas that were inadequately addressed in the
literature. We recommend further research in the following areas.
Intervention 1: Assessing the need for catheterisationEpidemiological studies of the prevalence and incidence of bacteriuria/ urinary tract infection during
short-term catheterisation in different populations and different care settings. These should at least encompass the
predominant populations; older people and those undergoing surgery. There needs to be clear definition of the 'cases' and
the populations from which they are drawn.
Intervention 2: Selection of catheter typeRandomised controlled trials of the efficacy of antiseptic/antimicrobial coated/impregnated urethral catheters
for short-term use. These need to be high quality studies, using the hospital's actual catheter-associated UTI prevalence
rather than national data, and appropriate follow-up.
Intervention 4: Catheter maintenance
Randomised controlled trials of strategies to establish how often catheters and catheter bags need to be
changed.
Key audit criteriaApart from providing practice advice, guidelines can also be used as audit criteria to measure adherence.
Below are some examples of how these guidelines can be used.
| Aim
| Criteria
|
| Identify all patients with indwelling urinary catheters, their clinical need for catheterisation,
assessed and documented.
| All patients should have a patient record that documents the reason for catheterisation, type of
catheter, catheter insertion, changes and care.
Standard 100%
Data collection: review of patient notes
|
| Ensure that all healthcare workers are trained and competent in urinary catheterisation.
| Healthcare workers receive training and updates in the management of urinary catheters.
Standard 100%
Data collection: review of staff education records
|
| To prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)
| All healthcare workers decontaminate their hands and wear a new pair of non-sterile gloves before
manipulating the system.
Standard 100%
Data collection: observation/self-audit
|
| To reduce the incidence of CAUTI by maintaining a closed system.
| All catheters must be connected to a sterile closed drainage system or valve.
Standard 100%
Data collection: observation
|
| To ensure patients and relatives are informed and educated about catheter management
| All patients and carers are aware of the need to:
-Decontaminate their hands;
-Keep the system closed.
Standard 100%
Data collection: direct patient questioning of patients and carers.
|
References:Al-Habdan, I. et al (2003) Assessment of nosocomial urinary tract infections in orthopaedic
patients: a prospective and comparative study using two different catheters. International Surgery; 88: 3, 152-154.
Ball, A.J. et al (1987) Bladder irrigation with chlorhexidine for the prevention of urinary
infection after transurethral operations: a prospective controlled study. Journal of Urology; 138: 491-494.
Brosnahan, J. et al (2004) Types of urethral catheters for management of short-term voiding
problems in hospitalised adults. (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library; (Issue 1). Chichester: Wiley.
Burke, J.P. et al (1983) Evaluation of daily meatal care with poly-antibiotic ointment in the
prevention of urinary catheter-associated bacteriuria. Journal of Urology; 129; 331-334.
Burke, J.P. et al (1981) Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Efficacy
of daily meatal care regimens. The American Journal of Medicine; 70: 655-658.
Chaiban, G. et al (2000) A rapid method of impregnating endotracheal tubes and urinary
catheters with gendine: a novel antiseptic agent. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy; 55: 1, 51-56.
Cho, Y.W. et al (2003) Gentamicin-releasing urethral catheter for short-term catheterization.
Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition; 14: 9, 963-972.
Classen, D.C. et al (1991a) Prevention of catheter-associated bacteriuria: clinical trial of
methods to block three known pathways of infection. American Journal of Infection Control; 19: 136-142.
Classen, D.C. et al (1991b) Daily meatal care for the prevention of catheter-associated
bacteriuria: results using frequent applications of poly-antibiotic cream. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology; 12:
157-162.
Cleland, V. et al (1971) Prevention of bacteriuria in female patients with indwelling
catheters. Nursing Research; 20: 309-318.
Cornia, P.B. et al (2003) Computer-based order entry decreases duration of indwelling urinary catheterisation
in hospitalised patients. American Journal of Medicine; 114: 404-407.
Cox, F. et al (1966) Neomycin-polymyxin prophylaxis of urinary-tract infection associated
with indwelling catheters. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 6: 165-168.
Darouche, R.O. et al (1999) Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated bladder catheters in
reducing catheter-associated bacteriuria: a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Urology; 54: 6, 976-981.
Davies, A.J. et al (1987) Does instillation of chlorhexidine into the bladder of catheterized
geriatric patients help reduce bacteriuria? Journal of Hospital Infection; 9: 72-75.
Desautels, R.F. (1962) Technical advances in the prevention of urinary tract infection.
Journal of Urology; 87: 487-490.
Dieckhaus, K.D., Garibaldi, R.A. (1998) Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract
infections. In: Abrutytn, E. et al (eds). Saunders Infection Control Reference Service. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Dunn, S. et al (2000) Management of short term indwelling urethral catheters to prevent
urinary tract infections. A Systematic Review. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery.
Gaonkar, T.A. et al (2003) Evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of urinary catheters
impregnated with antiseptics in an in vitro urinary tract model. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology; 24: 7,
506-513.
Garibaldi, R.A. et al (1982) An evaluation of daily bacteriologic monitoring to identify
preventable episodes of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Infection Control; 3: 466.
Garibaldi, R.A. et al (1980) Meatal colonisation and catheter associated bacteriuria. New
England Journal of Medicine; 303: 316-318.
Garibaldi, R.A. et al (1974) Factors predisposing to bacteriuria during indwelling urethral
catheterisation. New England Journal of Medicine; 291: 215-218.
Gentry, H., Cope, S. (2005) Using silver to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract
infections. Nursing Standard; 19: 50, 51-54.
Getliffe, K.A. et al (2000) The dissolution of urinary catheter encrustation. British Journal
of Urology International; 85: 60-64.
Getliffe, K.A. (1994) The use of bladder wash-outs to reduce urinary catheter encrustation.
British Journal of Urology; 73: 696-700.
Gilliespie, W.A. et al (1983) Does the addition of disinfect to urine drainage bags prevent
infection in catheterised patients? Lancet; 1: 1037-1039.
Gillespie, W.A. et al (1964) Prevention of urinary infections in gynaecology. British Medical
Journal; 2: 423-425.
Huth, T.S. et al (1992) Randomized trial of meatal care with silver sulfadiazine cream for
the prevention of catheter-associated bacteriuria. Journal of Infectious Diseases; 165: 14-18.
Johnson, J.R. et al (2006) Systematic review: antimicrobial urinary catheters to prevent
catheter-associated urinary tract infection in hospitalized patients. Annals of Internal Medicine; 144: 116-126.
Johnson, J.R. et al (1990) Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection with a
silver oxide-coated urinary catheter: clinical and microbiologic correlates. Journal of Infectious Diseases; 162:
1145-1150.
Jones, M.A., Hasan, A. (1988) Controlled trial of intravesical noxythiolin in the prevention
of infection following outflow tract surgery. British Journal of Urology; 62: 311-314.
Karchmer, T.B. et al (2000) A randomized crossover study of silver-coated urinary catheters
in hospitalized patients. Archives Internal Medicine; 160: 3294-3298.
Kass, E.H., Schneiderman, L.J. (1957) Entry of bacteria into the urinary tract of patients
with inlying catheters. New England Journal of Medicine; 256: 556-557.
Keerasuntonpong, A. et al (2003) Incidence of urinary tract infections in patients with
short-term indwelling urethral catheters: a comparison between a 3-day urinary drainage bag change and no change regimens.
American Journal of Infection Control; 31: 1, 9-12.
Kennedy, A.P., Brocklehurst, J.C. (1992) Assessment of the use of bladder
washouts/instillations in patients with long-term indwelling catheters. British Journal of Urology; 70: 6, 610-615.
Kunin, C.M., McCormack, R.C. (1966) Prevention of catheter-induced urinary tract infections
by sterile closed drainage. New England Journal of Medicine; 274: 1155-1162.
Kunin CM. (1997) Urinary Tract Infections: Detection, Prevention, and Management 5th ed.
Baltimore MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Lai, K.K. (2002) Use of silver-hydrogel urinary catheters on the incidence of
catheter-associated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients. American Journal of Infection Control; 30: 4,
221-225.
Liedberg, H. et al (1990) Refinements in the coating of urethral catheters reduces the
incidence of catheter-associated bacteriuria. An experimental and clinical study. European Urology; 17: 236-240.
Liedberg, H., Lundeberg, T. (1990) Silver alloy coated catheters reduce catheter-associated
bacteriuria. British Journal of Urology; 65: 379-381.
Lopez-Lopez, G. et al (1991) Effect of a siliconized latex urinary catheter on bacterial
adherence and human neutrophil activity. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease; 14: 1-6.
Madeo, M. et al The impact of using silver alloy urinary catheters in reducing the incidence
of urinary tract infections in the critical care setting. British Journal of Infection Control; 5: 1, 21-24.
Maizels, M., Shaeffer, A.J. (1980) Decreased incidence of bacteriuria associated with
periodic instillations of hydrogen peroxide into the urethral catheter drainage bag. Journal of Urology; 123: 841-845.
Mallett, J., Bailey, C. (eds) (1996) The Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures
(4th ed). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
Muncie, H.L.J. et al (1989) Once-daily irrigation of long-term urethral catheters with normal
saline. Lack of benefit. Archives of Internal Medicine; 149: 2, 441-443.
Newton, T. et al (2002) A comparison of the effect of early insertion of standard latex and
silver impregnated latex Foley catheters on urinary tract infections in burn patients. Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology; 23: 4, 217-218.
Nickel, J.C. et al (1989) Incidence and importance of bacteriuria in postoperative short-term
urinary catheterisation. Canadian Journal of Surgery; 32: 131-132.
Niel-Weise, B.S. et al (2002) Is there evidence for recommending silver-coated urinary
catheters in guidelines? Journal of Hospital Infection; 52: 2, 81-87.
Pellowe, C.M. et al (2003) Infection control: prevention of healthcare-associated infection
in primary and community care. Simultaneously published in: Journal of Hospital Infection; 55 (Supplement 2): 1-127 and
British Journal of Infection Control;
(Supplement) 4: 6, 1-100. Available at: www.richardwellsresearch.com
Pellowe, C.M. et al (2004) The epic project. Updating the evidence-base for national
evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England: a report with
recommendations. British Journal of InfectionControl; 5: 6, 10-15. Available at: www.richardwellsresearch.com
Platt, R. et al (1983) Reduction of mortality associated with nosocomial urinary tract
infection. Lancet; 1: 893-897.
Pomfret, I.J. (1996) Continence clinic. Catheters: design, selection and management. British
Journal of Nursing; 5: 245-251.
Pratt, R,J. et al (2001) The epic project: developing national evidence-based guidelines for
preventing healthcare associated infections. Phase 1: guidelines for preventing hospital-acquired infections. Journal of
Hospital Infection; 47(Supplement): S1-S-82. Available at: www.richardwellsresearch.com
Riley, D.K. et al (1995) A large randomised clinical trial of a silver-impregnated urinary
catheter: lack of efficacy and staphylococcal superinfection. American Journal of Medicine; 98: 349-356.
Roe, B.H., Brocklehurst, J.C. (1987) Study of patients with indwelling catheters. Journal of
Advanced Nursing; 12: 713-718.
Rupp, M.E. et al (2004) Effect of silver-coated urinary catheters: efficacy,
cost-effectiveness, and antimicrobial resistance. American Journal of Infection Control; 32:8, 445-450.
Saint, S. et al (1998) The efficacy of silver alloy-coated urinary catheters in preventing
urinary tract infection: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Medicine; 105: 236-241.
Saint, S., Lipsky, B.A. (1999) Preventing catheter-related bacteriuria. Should we? Can we?
How? Archives of Internal Medicine; 159: 800-808.
Saint, S. et al (2000) The potential clinical and economic benefits of silver alloy urinary
catheters in preventing urinary tract infection. Archives Internal Medicine; 160: 2670-2675.
Schneeberger, P.M. et al (1992) A randomised study on the effect of bladder irrigation with
povidone-iodine before removal of an indwelling catheter. Journal of Hospital Infection; 21: 223-229.
Stamm, W.E. (1998) Urinary tract infections. In: Bennett, J.V., Brachman, P.S. (eds).
Hospital Infection (4th ed). Philadelphia PA: Lippincott-Raven.
Sweet, D.E. et al (1985) Evaluation of H2O2 prophylaxis of bacteriuria inpatients with
long-term indwelling Foley catheters: a randomised controlled study. Infection Control; 6: 263-266.
Talja, M. et al (1990) Comparison of urethral reaction to full silicone, hydrogen-coated and
siliconised latex catheters. British Journal of Urology; 66: 652-657.
Thibon, P. et al (2000) Randomized multi-centre trial of the effects of a catheter coated
with hydrogel and silver salts on the incidence of hospital-acquired urinary tract infections. Journal of Hospital
Infection; 45: 117-124.
Thompson, R.L. et al (1984) Catheter-associated bacteriuria. Failure to reduce attack rates
using periodic instillations of a disinfectant into urinary drainage systems. Journal of the American Medical Association;
251: 747-751.
Thornton, G.F., Andriole, V.T. (1970) Bacteriuria during indwelling catheter drainage: II.
Effect of a closed sterile draining system. Journal of the American Medical Association; 214: 339.
Verleyen, P. et al (1998) Clinical application of the Bardex IC Foley catheter. European
Urology; 36: 240-246.
Ward, V. et al (1997) Preventing Hospital-Acquired Infection: Clinical Guidelines. London:
Public Health Laboratory Service.
Warren, J.W. et al (1978) Antibiotic irrigation and catheter-associated urinary-tract
infections. New England Journal of Medicine; 299: 570-573.
Webster, J. et al (2001) Water or antiseptic for periurethral cleaning before urinary
catheterization: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Infection Control; 29: 6, 389-394.
Wong, E.S., Hooton, T.M. (1983) Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract
infections. American Journal of Infection Control; 11: 1, 28-36.
