Catheters for intermittent catheterization: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Intermittent catheterization (IC) is considered the standard treatment for neuro-urological patients who are unable to empty their bladders. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic evaluation and network meta-analysis of all available types of intermittent catheters, and determine which one is best suited for clinical use.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases to identify relevant studies. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Five types of catheters were identified based on the included studies. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was then performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve was used to determine the best catheter for each outcome.

A total of 25 RCTs, involving 1233 participants, were included. The pooled odds ratios of symptomatic UTI were lower for two ready-to-use single-use catheters (gel-lubricated non-coated catheter, OR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.095-0.86; pre-activated hydrophilic-coated catheter, OR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.83) as compared to single-use non-coated catheter. In terms of patient satisfaction, the SUCRA results showed that the pre-activated hydrophilic-coated catheter may the preferred option (SUCRA = 82.8%). However, there were no significant differences in all outcome measures between traditional single-use non-coated catheters and clean non-coated catheters.

Ready-to-use single-use catheters are associated with lower rates of UTI compared to traditional catheters. Patients may be most satisfied with the pre-activated one. For traditional single-use non-coated catheters and clean non-coated catheters, there is still no convincing evidence as to which is better. Thus, more well-designed trials are needed.