Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 16, 2025
An In Vitro Bladder Model of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection
Published on: June 24, 2025
Hydrophilic versus non-hydrophilic catheters for clean intermittent catheterization: a meta-analysis to determine
Mauricio Plata1, Jessica Santander2,3, Laura Zuluaga2
1Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá and Universidad de los Andes School of Medicine, Carrera 7 No. 118-09, Unidad Renal, Piso 3, 110111, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. Mauricio.plata@fsfb.org.co.
Insights
Hydrophilic coated catheters significantly reduce urinary tract infection (UTI) risk in adults using clean intermittent catheterization (CIC). No significant difference in UTI risk reduction was found in the pediatric population, nor were differences in hematuria risk identified.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Infectious Diseases
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is linked to increased risks of urinary tract infections (UTIs), urethral trauma, and pain.
- Traditional polyvinyl carbon (PVC) catheters have been associated with these complications.
- Hydrophilic coated catheters represent an advancement aimed at mitigating these adverse events.
Approach:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized crossover trials comparing hydrophilic and uncoated catheters for CIC were identified across multiple databases.
- Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), with data analyzed using a random-effects model.
Key Points:
- Analysis of nine studies involving 525 patients revealed a reduced risk of UTIs with hydrophilic catheters compared to uncoated ones (RR=0.78; 95% CI 0.62-0.97).
- In adult patients (>18 years), hydrophilic catheters showed a significant reduction in UTIs (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.74-0.93).
- No significant difference in UTI risk was observed for single-use uncoated versus hydrophilic catheters, and no differences in hematuria risk were identified.
Conclusions:
- Hydrophilic catheters demonstrate a reduced risk of UTIs in adult patients undergoing CIC, with low heterogeneity.
- Significant differences in hematuria risk reduction were not proven between hydrophilic and uncoated catheters.
- A significant difference in UTI risk reduction was not found in the pediatric population, and data on urethral trauma were insufficient for meta-analysis.
Introduction:
Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is associated with an increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTI), urethral trauma, urethral stenosis, hematuria, and pain. The first catheters were developed of polyvinyl carbon (PVC). Several types of catheters have been developed to reduce these complications, such as those with hydrophilic coating.
Objective:
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of hydrophilic coated catheters compared to uncoated catheters on the rate of UTI in patients using CIC.
Methodology:
A systematic literature search was performed in OVID, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or randomized crossover trials comparing UTI and hematuria rates in patients using hydrophilic vs. non-hydrophilic catheters for CIC were identified. The selected trials were evaluated for risk of bias using the "Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2)." The results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), under a random-effects model. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 software.
Results:
Nine studies with a total of 525 patients in CIC were analyzed. Overall, the use of hydrophilic catheters had a lower risk of UTIs compared to uncoated catheters (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.62-0.97; I2 = 37%). Five of the studies include patients > 18 years, showing a reduction of UTIs with the use of hydrophilic catheters (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.74-0.93; I2 = 0%). There was no difference in UTI development when comparing single-use uncoated vs hydrophilic catheters. However, heterogeneity was high (RR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.59-1.00; I2 = 57%). Regarding hematuria risk reduction, we were unable to identify differences between the use of hydrophilic catheters compared to uncoated catheters (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66-1.60).
Conclusion:
We found a risk reduction of UTIs associated with using hydrophilic catheters in adults, with low heterogeneity. Regarding hematuria, significant differences were not proved. We do not find a significant difference in UTI risk reduction in the pediatric population. Urethral trauma presence could not be meta-analyzed due to a lack of information reported.
Related Concept Videos
01:30Urinary Tract Infection III: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
01:23Hand hygiene
Hand washing...
01:26Urinary Tract Infection I: Introduction
01:17Urinary Tract Infection IV: Nursing Management
01:26Urine Studies II: Urine Culture and Sensitivity Test
01:30Cleaning, Sterilization, and Disinfection
Cleaning
The cleaning process usually involves using water with detergents or enzymatic cleaner and removing foreign material from objects and surfaces, including organic material such as body fluids or inorganic material like soil. Cleaning is performed before high-level disinfection and sterilization because foreign materials on the cover of the devices interfere with process...