Show simple item record

Condom Versus Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Randomized Trial

dc.contributor.authorSaint, Sanjayen_US
dc.contributor.authorKaufman, Samuel R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRogers, Mary A. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Paul D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOssenkop, Kathleenen_US
dc.contributor.authorLipsky, Benjamin A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-01T15:48:27Z
dc.date.available2010-04-01T15:48:27Z
dc.date.issued2006-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationSaint, Sanjay; Kaufman, Samuel R.; Rogers, Mary A. M.; Baker, Paul D.; Ossenkop, Kathleen; Lipsky, Benjamin A. (2006). "Condom Versus Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Randomized Trial." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 54(7): 1055-1061. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66301>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0002-8614en_US
dc.identifier.issn1532-5415en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66301
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16866675&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractTo compare condom and indwelling urinary catheters in terms of infection risk and patient satisfaction. DESIGN : A prospective, randomized, unblinded, controlled trial. SETTING : An academically affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS : Hospitalized men aged 40 and older who required a urinary collection device. MEASUREMENTS : The incidence of adverse outcomes (bacteriuria, symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), or death) and patient device-related satisfaction as determined according to a questionnaire. Dementia status was recorded to assess effect modification by the presence of dementia. RESULTS : Seventy-five subjects were randomized: 41 receiving an indwelling catheter and 34 a condom catheter. The incidence of an adverse outcome was 131/1,000 patient-days with an indwelling catheter and 70/1,000 patient-days with a condom catheter ( P =.07). The median time to an adverse event was 7 days in the indwelling group and 11 days in the condom group. After adjusting for other risk factors, it was found that condom catheter use reduced adverse outcomes ( P =.04). Patients without dementia who had an indwelling catheter were approximately five times as likely to develop bacteriuria or symptomatic UTI or to die (hazard ratio=4.84, 95% confidence interval=1.46–16.02) as those with a condom catheter ( P =.01). Patients reported that condom catheters were more comfortable ( P =.02) and less painful ( P =.02) than indwelling catheters. CONCLUSION : The use of condom catheters is less likely to lead to bacteriuria, symptomatic UTI, or death than the use of indwelling catheters. This protection is especially apparent in men without dementia.en_US
dc.format.extent101213 bytes
dc.format.extent3110 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rights© 2006, The American Geriatrics Societyen_US
dc.subject.otherUrinary Catheteren_US
dc.subject.otherUrinary Tract Infectionen_US
dc.subject.otherBacteriuriaen_US
dc.subject.otherCognitive Impairmenten_US
dc.titleCondom Versus Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Randomized Trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelGeriatricsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumCenter for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, Michigan ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan ;en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherVeterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, Washington ; anden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.en_US
dc.identifier.pmid16866675en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66301/1/j.1532-5415.2006.00785.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00785.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of the American Geriatrics Societyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarren JW. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997 ; 11 : 609 – 622.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaint S, Wiese J, Amory JK et al. Are physicians aware of which of their patients have indwelling urinary catheters? Am J Med 2000 ; 109 : 476 – 480.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaley RW, Hooton TM, Culver DH et al. Nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals, 1975–1976 : Estimated frequency by selected characteristics of patients. Am J Med 1981 ; 70 : 947 – 959.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarren JW, Steinberg L, Hebel JR et al. The prevalence of urethral catheterization in Maryland nursing homes. Arch Intern Med 1989 ; 149 : 1535 – 1537.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKunin CM, Douthitt S, Dancing J et al. The association between the use of urinary catheters and morbidity and mortality among elderly patients in nursing homes. Am J Epidemiol 1992 ; 135 : 291 – 301.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrandeis GH, Baumann MM, Hossain M et al. The prevalence of potentially remediable urinary incontinence in frail older people : A study using the Minimum Data Set. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997 ; 45 : 179 – 184.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGammack JK. Use and management of chronic urinary catheters in long-term care : Much controversy, little consensus. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2003 ; 4 ( 2 Suppl ) : S52 – S59.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson TM, Ouslander JG, Uman GC et al. Urinary incontinence treatment preferences in long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001 ; 49 : 710 – 718.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaint S, Lipsky BA, Baker PD et al. Urinary catheters : What type do men and their nurses prefer? J Am Geriatr Soc 1999 ; 47 : 1453 – 1457.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaint S, Lipsky BA, Goold SD. Indwelling urinary catheters : A one-point restraint? Ann Intern Med 2002 ; 137 : 125 – 127.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaint S, Chenoweth CE. Biofilms and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2003 ; 17 : 411 – 432.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrieger JN, Kaiser DL, Wenzel RP. Urinary tract etiology of bloodstream infections in hospitalized patients. J Infect Dis 1983 ; 148 : 57 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurke JP. Patient safety : Infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 2003 ; 348 : 651 – 656.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaley RW, Culver DH, White JW et al. The nationwide nosocomial infection rate. A new need for vital statistics. Am J Epidemiol 1985 ; 121 : 159 – 167.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerberding JL. Hospital-onset infections : A patient safety issue. Ann Intern Med 2002 ; 137 : 665 – 670.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarren JW. Catheter-associated bacteriuria in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994 ; 15 : 557 – 562.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaint S. Clinical and economic consequences of nosocomial catheter-related bacteriuria. Am J Infect Control 2000 ; 28 : 68 – 75.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTambyah PA, Knasinski V, Maki DG. The direct costs of nosocomial catheter-associated urinary tract infection in the era of managed care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002 ; 23 : 27 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOuslander JG, Greengold B, Chen S. Complications of chronic indwelling urinary catheters among male nursing home patients : A prospective study. J Urol 1987 ; 138 : 1191 – 1195.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOuslander JG, Greengold B, Chen S. External catheter use and urinary tract infections among incontinent male nursing home patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1987 ; 35 : 1063 – 1070.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZimakoff J, Stickler DJ, Pontoppidan B et al. Bladder management and urinary tract infections in Danish hospitals, nursing homes, and home care : A national prevalence study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996 ; 17 : 215 – 221.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEsclarin De Ruz A, Garcia Leoni E, Herruzo Cabrera R. Epidemiology and risk factors for urinary tract infection in patients with spinal cord injury. J Urol 2000 ; 164 : 1285 – 1289.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJamison J, Maguire S, McCann J. Catheter policies for management of long term voiding problems in adults with neurogenic bladder disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 ; ( 2 ) : CD004375.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarren JW. Urethral catheters, condom catheters, and nosocomial urinary tract infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996 ; 17 : 212 – 214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirsh DD, Fainstein V, Musher DM. Do condom catheter collecting systems cause urinary tract infection? JAMA 1979 ; 242 : 340 – 341.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLipsky BA, Ireton RC, Fihn SD et al. Diagnosis of bacteriuria in men : Specimen collection and culture interpretation. J Infect Dis 1987 ; 155 : 847 – 854.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStark RP, Maki DG. Bacteriuria in the catheterized patient. What quantitative level of bacteriuria is relevant? N Engl J Med 1984 ; 311 : 560 – 564.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNicolle LE, Harding GK, Kennedy J et al. Urine specimen collection with external devices for diagnosis of bacteriuria in elderly incontinent men. J Clin Microbiol 1988 ; 26 : 1115 – 1119.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOuslander JG, Greengold BA, Silverblatt FJ et al. An accurate method to obtain urine for culture in men with external catheters. Arch Intern Med 1987 ; 147 : 286 – 288.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson DE, Muncie HL, O'Reilly JL et al. An external urine collection device for incontinent women. Evaluation of long-term use. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990 ; 38 : 1016 – 1022.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarren JW. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001 ; 17 : 299 – 303.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaint S, Lipsky BA. Preventing catheter-related bacteriuria : Can we? Should we? How? Arch Intern Med 1999 ; 159 : 800 – 808.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.