Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 36, No. 3, 1999
Issue release date: September 1999
Eur Urol 1999;36:240–246
(DOI:10.1159/000068005)

Clinical Application of the Bardex IC Foley Catheter

Verleyen P. · De Ridder D. · van Poppel H. · Baert L.
Service of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Objectives: We performed two randomized prospective studies with the silver-coated Bardex IC catheter in order to evaluate the incidence of bacteriuria during short- and medium-term catheterization after urological procedures. Methods: During catheterization only consecutive suprapubic urine samples were taken and cultured. After removal of the catheter the patient was allowed one wash-out void, and before the second micturition a suprapubic puncture was performed to collect a culture specimen. Results: In the first trial, after radical prostatectomy 18 patients with the Bardex IC catheter were compared to 17 patients with a silicon catheter after the same procedure. There was no significant difference in bacteriuria after 14 days (50.0 vs. 53.3%). In the second part of the study 180 patients were evaluated 101 with latex and 79 with Bardex IC catheters. The median catheterization time was 5 days. The results show a significant delay in the onset of bacteriuria when a silver alloy catheter is used (p < 0.003). On day 5 only 6.3% had bacteriuria in the Bardex IC group versus 11.9% in the latex group. Conclusion: We conclude that, after urological procedures, short-term catheterization with the Bardex IC catheter is superior to the classical latex catheter.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Stevens GP, Jacobsen JA, Burke JP: Changing patterns of hospital infections and antibiotic use. Prevalence surveys in a community hospital. Arch Intern Med 1981;141:587.
  2. Davis HD, Ford Jones EL, Shung RY, Leslie B, Matlow AG, Gold R: Nosocomial urinary tract infections at a pediatric hospital. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992;11:349–354.
  3. Hilton P: Bladder drainage: A survey of practices among gynaecologists in the British Isles. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:1178–1189.
  4. Thompson RL, Haley CE, Searcy MA, Guenthner SM, Kaiser DL, Groschel DH, Gillenwater JY, Wenzel RP: Catheter-associated bacteriuria. JAMA 1984;251:747–751.
  5. Andersen JT, Heisterberg L, Hebjorn S, Petersen K, Stampe Sorensen S, Fischer-Rasmussen U, Molsted-Pedersen L, Nielsen NC: Suprapubic vs. transurethral bladder drainage after colposuspension or vaginal repair. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1985;64:139–143.
  6. Vandoni RE, Lironi A, Tschantz P: Bacteriuria during urinary tract catheterisation: Suprapubic vs urethral route, a prospective randomised trial. Acta Chir Belg 1994;94:12–16.
  7. Platt R, Polk BF, Murdoch B, Rosner B: Mortality associated with nosocomial urinary tract infection. N Engl J Med 1982;307:637–642.
  8. Givens CD, Wenzel RP: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in surgical patients. J Urol 1980;12:646–648.
  9. Green MS, Rubinstein E, Amit P: Estimating the effects of nosocomial infections on the length of hospitalisation. J Infect Dis 1982;145:667–672.
  10. Warren JW: The catheter and urinary tract infection. Med Clin North Am 1991;75:481–493.
  11. Boulard G, Ravussin P, Humayon J: Prévention de l’infection urinaire nosocomiale au cours du sondage vésical. Ann Fr Anesth Réanim 1992;11:720–723.
  12. Sethia KK, Selkon JB, Berry AR, Turner CM, Kettlewell MG, Gough MH: Prospective randomised controlled trial of urethral vs. suprapubic catheterisation. Br J Surg 1987;74:624–625.
  13. Piergiovanni M, Tschantz P: Sondage urinaire: Voie transuréthrale ou suspubienne? Helv Chir Acta 1991;58:201–205.
  14. Rasmussen OV, Korner B, Moller-Sorensen P, Kronborg O: Suprapubic vs. urethral bladder drainage following surgery for rectal cancer. Acta Chir Scand 1977;143:371–374.
  15. Shapiro J, Hoffmann J, Jersky J: A comparison of suprapubic and transurethral drainage for postoperative urinary retention in general surgical patients. Acta Chir Scand 1982;148:323–327.
  16. Vandoni RE, Lironi A, Tschantz P: Bacteriuria during urinary tract catheterisation: Suprapubic vs. transurethral route: A prospective randomised trial. Acta Chir Belg 1994;94:12–16.
  17. Hogan AF, Prasard B, Waldron DJ, O’Sullivan DC: Acute urinary retention. Comparison of suprapubic and urethral catheterization. Br J Urol 1992;70:149–151.
  18. Christensen PB, Kronborg O: Suprapubic bladder drainage in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 1981;68:348–349.
  19. Klaaborg KE, Kronborg O: Suprapubic bladder drainage in elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29:260–262.
  20. Ichsan J, Hunt DR: Suprapubic catheters: A comparison of suprapubic vs. urethral catheters in the treatment of acute urinary retention. Aust NZ J Surg 1987;57:33–36.
  21. Talja M, Andersson LC, Ruutu M, Alfthan O: Toxicity testing of urinary catheters. Br J Urol 1985;57:579–584.
  22. Liedberg H, Lundeberg T: Assessment of silver-coated urinary catheter toxicity by cell-culture. Urol Res 1989;17:359–360.
  23. Edwards L, Trott PA: Catheter-induced urethral inflammation. J Urol 1973;110:678–681.
  24. Graham DT, Mark GE, Pomeroy AR: Cellular toxicity of urinary catheters. Med J Aust 1983;i:456–459.
  25. Wilksch J, Vernon Roberts B, Garrett R, Smith K: The role of catheter surface morphology and extractable cytotoxic material in tissue reactions to urethral catheters. Br J Urol 1983;55:48–52.
  26. Talja M, Virtanen J, Andersson LC: Toxic catheters and diminished urethral blood circulation in the induction of urethral strictures. Eur Urol 1986;12:340–345.
  27. Hammarsten J, Lindqvist K, Sunzel H: Urethral strictures following transurethral resection of the prostate. The role of the catheter. Br J Urol 1989;63:397–400.
  28. Huaijin C: Manufacture and clinical employment of an antibiotic silicon-rubber catheter. Eur Urol 1988;14:72–74.
  29. Stickler DJ, Howe NS, Winters C: Bacterial biofilm growth on ciprofloxacin treated urethral catheters. Cells Materials 1994;4:387–398.
  30. Tidd MJ, Gow JG, Pennington JH: Comparison of hydrophilic polymer-coated latex, uncoated latex and PVC indwelling balloon catheters in the prevention of urinary infection. Br J Urol 1976;48:285–291.
  31. Lopez-Lopez G, Pascual A, Martinez-Martinez L, Perea EJ: Effect of siliconised latex urinary catheter on bacterial adherence and human neutrophil activity. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;14:1–6.
  32. Liedberg H, Lundeberg T: Silver coating of urinary catheters prevents adherence and growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Urol Res 1989;17:357–358.
  33. Whaler RL, Cai C, Thompson LM, Sarrasin MJ, Dempsey DJ, Boven MA: An infection inhibiting urinary catheter material. ASAIO J 1997;43:842–847.
  34. Darouiche RO, Safar H, Raad II: In vitro efficacy of antimicrobial-coated bladder catheters in inhibiting bacterial migration along catheter surface. J Infect Dis 1997;176:1109–1112.
  35. Stickler DJ: Biofilms, catheters and urinary tract infections. Eur Urol Update Series 1996;5:1–8.
  36. Liedberg H, Lundeberg T: Assessment of silver-coated urinary catheter toxicity by cell-culture. Urol Res 1989;17:359–360.
  37. Ockerblad NF: The silver catheter. J Urol 1949;2:262–264.
  38. Akiyama H, Okamoto S: Prophylaxis of indwelling urethral catheter infection: Clinical experience with a modified Foley-catheter and drainage-system on catheter-associated bacteriuria. J Urol 1988;139:69–73.
  39. Shaeffer AJ, Story KO, Johnson SM: Effect of silver oxide/trichloroisocyanuric acid antimicrobial urinary drainage-system on catheter-associated bacteriuria. J Urol 1988;139:69–73.
  40. Maki DG, Cobb L, Garman JK, Shapiro JM, Ringer M, Helgerson RB: An attachable silver-impregnated cuff for prevention of infection with central venous catheters: A prospective randomised multicenter trial. Am J Med 1988;85:307–314.
  41. Flowers RH, Schwenzer KJ, Kopel RF, Fisch MJ, Tucker SI, Farr BM: Efficacy of an attachable subcutaneous cuff for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection. JAMA 1989;261:878–883.
  42. Liedberg H, Lundeberg T: Silver alloy coated catheters reduce catheter-associated bacteriuria. Br J Urol 1990;65:379–381.
  43. Liedberg H, Lundeberg T, Ekman P: Refinements in the coating of urethral catheters reduces the incidence of catheter-associated bacteriuria. An experimental and clinical study. Eur Urol 1990;17:236–240.
  44. Liedberg H, Lundeberg T: The silver coated catheter (abstract 769). AUA, 1990.
  45. Lundeberg T: Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections by use of silver-impregnated catheters (letter). Lancet 1986;ii:1031.
  46. Johnson JR, Roberts PL, Olsen RJ, Moyer KA, Stamm WE: Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection with a silver-oxide coated urinary catheter: Clinical and microbiologic correlates. J Infect Dis 1990;162:1145–1150.
  47. Riley DK, Classen DC, Stevens LE, Burke JP: A large randomised clinical trial of a silver impregnated urinary catheter: Lack of efficacy and staphylococcal superinfection. Am J Med 1995;98:349–356.
  48. Perrin LC, Penfold C, McLeish A: A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing suprapubic with urethral catheterisation in rectal surgery. Aust NZ J Surg 1997;67:554–556.
  49. Pollack CV, Pollack ES, Andrew ME: Suprapubic bladder aspiration vs urethral catheterisation in ill infants: Success, efficiency and complication rates. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:225–230.
  50. Stark RP, Maki DG: Bacteriuria in the catheterised patient. What quantitative level of bacteriuria is relevant? N Engl J Med 1984;311:560–564.
  51. Durbin WA, Peter G: Management of urinary tract infections in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis 1984;3:564–574.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50