Indwelling Catheter Management: From Habit-based to Evidence-based Practice

  • 12/1/2003
  • 2 Comments
  • 52196 reads
Author(s): 
JoAnn Mercer Smith, BSN, RN, CWOCN

Although suprapubic catheters are thought to have advantages such as lower infection rates, increased patient acceptance, and ease of self-care, they are not without problems.6 Suprapubic catheters are contraindicated in patients with intrinsic sphincter deficiency or chronic unstable bladders.7 Complications such as urinary tract infection, leakage from the urethra or stoma, bladder spasms,9 and difficult catheter removal10 all have been reported. European studies indicate that patients with suprapubic catheters have lower rates of urinary tract infection; however, they have a significant increase in bladder stone formation.11,12 In the US, scant research has produced few clinical articles regarding the use, indications, and complications of suprapubic catheterization.

     An important aspect of management of the patient with a suprapubic catheter is catheter securement. Unsecured catheters lead to enlargement of the stoma tract, leakage, and the need for larger diameter catheters. Difficult removal with trauma and bleeding from the stoma tract can occur from balloon cuffing on deflation, especially with silicone catheters.13

Catheter Materials

     Urinary catheters are available in latex and silicone. Hydrogel, silicone elastomer, and antimicrobials are common catheter coatings, designed to provide a smooth surface that protects against irritation of the urethral mucosa and encrustation. Each coating varies somewhat in its performance and benefits. Quality catheters have coatings applied to inner and outer surfaces.

     Latex. Latex catheters are soft, flexible, conformable, and low cost — they continue to be one of the best catheter choices available.6 Red rubber latex catheters have the added benefit of being radiopaque; the addition of barium to the latex also makes these catheters firmer and less likely to kink. Due to the rise in latex sensitivity, some facilities are removing all latex products and going “latex free.”
     Although latex sensitivity can be an issue for some patients, the actual prevalence of latex allergy in the general public is low (around 1%).14 Latex sensitivity most commonly occurs in medical personnel, rubber industry workers, or patients with repeated exposure, such as children with spina bifida.15 In addition, individuals with a history of atopy or allergies to bananas, avocado, kiwi, or chestnuts may cross-react to latex15; therefore, taking a thorough history to identify latex-sensitive patients is important. Strict latex precautions, including use of latex-free catheter kits and drainage systems, should be followed with latex-sensitive patients. Since 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required that medical devices containing latex be identified by including a latex warning statement on the product label.16 Nurses should check labeling before selecting a catheter for patients with known latex sensitivity.

     Silicone. Silicone catheters are available uncoated or hydrogel-coated. Studies have shown that silicone is more biocompatible with urethral tissue than latex, leading to reduced incidence of urethritis and possibly of urethral strictures.17 However, animal studies of catheters used for more than 6 weeks showed no difference between silicone and latex catheters in terms of inflammatory changes.17 Some catheter manufacturers use a leaching process to remove latex proteins and processing chemicals that could lead to reactions. One advantage of silicone catheters is that the thinner walls provide larger internal lumens per external diameter and are less prone to collapse during aspiration.18 This feature results in greater flow and is advantageous for patients with blood clots or sediment in their urine.

References: 

1. Dobson C, Naidu S, Johnson M. Nurses’ perceptions of urinary catheter selection and management. Urology Nursing. 1996;16:140–144.
2. Evans E. Indwelling catheter care: dispelling the misconceptions. Geriatric Nursing. 1999;20(2):85–89.
3. Maki DG, Tambyah PA. Engineering out the risk of infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2)342–347.
4. Wilde M. Meanings and practical knowledge of people with long-term urinary catheters. Journal of Wound Ostomy Continence Nursing. 2003;30(1):33–39.
5. Saint S, Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD, et al. The potential clinical and economic benefits of silver alloy urinary catheters in preventing urinary tract infection. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(17):2670–2675.
6. Cravens DD, Zweig S. Urinary catheter management. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(2):369–376.
7. Fanti JA, Newman DK, Colling J, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines, No. 2, 1996 Update: Urinary Incontinence in Adults. Acute and Chronic Management. Rockville, Md. US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Services Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; March 1996. AHCPR Publication No.96-0682.
8. Wong ES, Hooten TM. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 1981;Feb. [serial online]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/GUIDE/uritract.htmnece. Accessed September 8, 2003.
9. Addison R, Mould C. Risk assessment in suprapubic catheterization. Nursing Standard. 2002;14(36):43–46.
10. Robinson J. Deflation of a foley catheter balloon. Nursing Standard. 2003;17(27):33–38.
11. Mitsui T, Minami K, Furuno T, et al. Is suprapubic cystostomy an optimal urinary management in high quadriplegics? A comparative study of suprapubic cystostomy and clean intermittent catheterization. Eur Urol. 2000; 38(4):434–438.
12. Nomura S. Ishido T, Teranishi J, Makiyama K. Long-term analysis of supra-pubic cyctostomy drainage in patients with neurogenic bladders. Urologia Internationalis. 2000;65(4):185–189.
13. Parkin J, Scanlan J, Woolley M, et al. Urinary catheter “deflation cuff” formation: clinical audit and quantitative in vitro analysis. British Journal of Urology. 2002;90(7):666–671.
14. Liss GM, Sussman GL. Latex sensitization: occupational versus general prevalence rates. Am J Ind Med. 1999;35(2):196–200.
15. Vila L, Sanchez G, Ano M, et al. Risk factors for latex sensitization among health care workers. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1999;9(6):356–360.
16. Department of Health and Human Services. FDA. Federal Register: Natural Rubber-Containing Medical Devices; User Labeling, Federal Register 1997;62(189):51021–51030.
17. Tullock AGS. Ferguson AF. Catheter-induced urethritis: a comparison between latex and silicone catheters in a prospective clinical trial. British Journal of Urology. 1985;57(3):325–328.
18. Studder UE, Bishop MC, Zingg EJ. How to fill silicone catheter balloons. Urology. 1983;22(3):300–302.
19. Salgado CD, Karchmer TB, Farr BM. Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections, 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003;297–311.
20. Robinson J. Urethral catheter selection. Nursing Standard. 2001;15(25):39–42.
21. Newman DK. Managing indwelling urethral catheters. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1998;44(12):26–35.
22. Chinnes L, Dillion A, Fauerbach L. Home Care Handbook of Infection Control 2002. Washington, DC: Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC);2002.
23. Gerard L, Sueppel C. Lubrication technique for male catheterization. Urology Nursing. 1997;17(4):156–158.
24. Cancio LC, Sabanegh ES JR, Thompson IM. Managing the foley catheter. Am Fam Physician. 1993;48(5):829–836.
25. Wilde M. Long-term indwelling urinary catheter care:conceptualizing the research base. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(6):1252–1261.
26. Hanchett M. Techniques for stabilizing urinary catheters. Am J Nurs. 2002;102(3):44–48.
27. Getliffe K. Managing recurrent urinary catheter blockage: problems, promises and practicalities. Wound Ostomy Continence. 2003;30(3):146–151.
28. Dille C, Kirchhoff K. Increasing the wearing time of vinyl urinary drainage bags with bleach. Rehabilitation Nursing. 1993;18(5):292–295.
29. Rutala WA, Barbee SL, Aquiar NC, et al. Antimicrobial activity of home disinfectants and natural products against potential human pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21(1):33–38.
30. Daifuku R. Stann WE. Association of rectal urethral colonization with urinary tract infection in patients with indwelling catheters. JAMA. 1984;252(15)2028–20230.
31. Warren JW. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001;17(4):299–303.
32. Maki DG, Knasinski V, Halvorson K, Tambyah PA. Risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a prospective study showing the minimal effect of catheter care violations on the risk of CAUTI (abstract). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:165.
33. Stickler DJ. Bacterial biofilms and encrustations of urethral catheters. Biofouling. 1996;94:293–305.
34. Donlan RM. Biofilms and device-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis CDC. 2001;(7)2:277–281.
35. Kunin CM, Chin QF, Chambers S. Formation of encrustations on indwelling urinary catheters in the elderly: a comparison of different types of catheter materials in “blocker” and “nonblocker”. J Urol. 1987;138(4):899–902.
36. Tambyah PA, Maki DG. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is rarely symptomatic; a prospective study of 1,497 catheterized patients. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(5):678–682.
37. Gammack JK. Use and management of chronic urinary catheters in long-term care: much controversy, little consensus. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2002;3(3):162–168.
38. McGeer A, Campbell B, Emori TG, et al. Definitions of infection for surveillance in long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control. 1991;19(1):1–7.
39. Switters DM. Assessing leakage from around the urethral catheter. Urological Nursing. 1989;9(3):8–10.
40. Bhatia NN, Bergman A. Cystometry: unstable bladder and urinary tract infection. Brit J Urol. 1986;58(2):134–137.
41. Ziemann LK, Lastauskas NM, Ambrosini G. Incidence of leakage from indwelling urinary catheters in home-bound patient. Home Healthcare Nurse. 1984;2(5):22–26.
42. Stickler DJ. Hewitt P. Activity of antiseptics against biofilms of mixed bacterial species growing on silicone surfaces. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:416–421.
43. Morris NS, Stickler DJ. Does drinking cranberry juice produce urine inhibitory to the development of crystalline, catheter-blocking Proteus mirabilis biofilms? BJU Int. 2001;88(3):192–197.









































image description image description 




  


  

  


  Anonymoussays:
  January 10.2010 at 23:59 pm
  
Hi there, thanks for this wonderful article. have gotten quite a bit of insight on evidence-based practice on the care of IDC.

  

  Reply to this comment »





  

  


  Anonymoussays:
  October 2.2009 at 19:47 pm
  
Excellent article.  I work in a facility where they are filling 30 ml balloons with 10 ml and wondering constantly why they are leaking .  Foleys are being changed on a continual basis because of lack of knowledge.  All we have is 14 & 16 fr 30- ml .  Of course orders are always for 14 , 16  10 ml.  And the story goes on and on . i printed this article and I am going to leave in the DON's desk.  Directions are right on the foleys by the way , " fill 30 ml only with 30 ml "  Yet they still fill the balloons with 10 ml , and the foleys fall out.  I left a note to order 14 and 16 fr 5 ml .  Hopefully this article will do some good

  

  Reply to this comment »





  
Post new comment


  



 
 



  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use  to create page breaks.
More information about formatting options





Image CAPTCHA

 
 
 
Enter the characters shown in the image.