TY - JOUR
T1 - Pilot study of a non-return catheter valve for reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections in critically ill patients
AU - Panitchote, Anupol
AU - Charoensri, Suranut
AU - Chetchotisakd, Ploenchan
AU - Hurst, Cameron
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a non-return catheter valve vs. the standard urine bag for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) in critically ill patients. Material and Method: This was a pilot, randomized, stratified, open-label controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01963013). Ninety-six critically ill patients requiring indwelling urinary catheter were assigned with either a non-return catheter valve or the standard urine bag. Symptoms and signs of CAUTI before and after enrollment for all patients were recorded. If CAUTI was suspected, urine for microbiological testing was collected. The primary outcome was the incidence density rate of symptomatic CAUTI and bacteriurial presence. Results: The 96 patients were randomized into two groups. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both groups except for the sex distribution. The incidence rate ratio was 0.71 for symptomatic CAUTI in the non-return catheter valve group (95% CI 0.25-1.98, p-value = 0.51). The crude incidence rate ratio of bacteriuria in the non-return valve group was 0.66 (95% CI 0.3-1.46, p-value = 0.31). The sex-adjusted incidence rate ratio of bacteriuria in the non-return catheter valve group was 0.64 (95% CI 0.29-1.41, p-value = 0.27). Conclusion: Using a non-return catheter valve might not prevent CAUTI among critically ill patients.
AB - Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a non-return catheter valve vs. the standard urine bag for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) in critically ill patients. Material and Method: This was a pilot, randomized, stratified, open-label controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01963013). Ninety-six critically ill patients requiring indwelling urinary catheter were assigned with either a non-return catheter valve or the standard urine bag. Symptoms and signs of CAUTI before and after enrollment for all patients were recorded. If CAUTI was suspected, urine for microbiological testing was collected. The primary outcome was the incidence density rate of symptomatic CAUTI and bacteriurial presence. Results: The 96 patients were randomized into two groups. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both groups except for the sex distribution. The incidence rate ratio was 0.71 for symptomatic CAUTI in the non-return catheter valve group (95% CI 0.25-1.98, p-value = 0.51). The crude incidence rate ratio of bacteriuria in the non-return valve group was 0.66 (95% CI 0.3-1.46, p-value = 0.31). The sex-adjusted incidence rate ratio of bacteriuria in the non-return catheter valve group was 0.64 (95% CI 0.29-1.41, p-value = 0.27). Conclusion: Using a non-return catheter valve might not prevent CAUTI among critically ill patients.
KW - Catheter-associated urinary tract infection
KW - Critically ill patients
KW - Non-return catheter valve
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924286002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 25842795
VL - 98
SP - 150
EP - 155
JO - Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand
JF - Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand
SN - 0125-2208
IS - 2
ER -