Early versus late removal of urinary catheter after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation. During the operation, a catheter is introduced into the bladder and remains in place postoperatively to allow the bladder to drain. This decreases tension from the cysto-ureteric anastomosis and promotes healing. Unfortunately, urinary catheters can pose an infection risk to patients as they allow bacteria into the bladder, potentially resulting in a urinary tract infection (UTI). The longer the catheter remains in place, the greater the risk of developing a UTI. There is no consensus approach to the time a catheter should remain in place post-transplant. Furthermore, the different timings of catheter removal are thought to be associated with different incidences of UTI and postoperative complications, such as anastomotic breakdown.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to compare patients who had their catheter removed < 5 days post-transplant surgery to those patients who had their catheter removed ≥ 5 days following their kidney transplant. Primary outcome measures between the two groups included: the incidence of symptomatic UTIs, the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria and the incidence of major urological complications requiring intervention and treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 April 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing timing of catheter removal post-transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included, and all recipients were included regardless of age, demographics or type of urinary catheter used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Results from the literature search were screened by two authors to identify if they met our inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a urinary catheter before five days (120 hours) as an 'early removal' and anything later than this as a 'late removal.' The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model, and results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies (197 patients) were included in our analysis. One study comprised a full-text article, and the other was a conference abstract with very limited information. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally either high or unclear. It is uncertain whether early versus late removal of the urinary catheter made any difference to the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (RR 0.89, 95% Cl 0.17 to 4.57; participants = 197; I2 = 88%; very low certainty evidence). Data on other outcomes, such as the incidence of UTI and the incidence of major urological complications, were lacking. Furthermore, the follow-up of patients across the studies was short, with no patients being followed beyond one month.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A high-quality, well-designed RCT is required to compare the effectiveness of early catheter removal versus late catheter removal in patients following a kidney transplant. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to suggest any difference between early and late catheter removal post-transplant, and the studies investigating this were generally of poor quality.

WITHDRAWN: Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management

BACKGROUND

Intermittent catheterisation is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. There are now several designs of intermittent catheter (e.g. different lengths, 'ready to use' presentation) with different materials (e.g. PVC-free) and coatings (e.g. hydrophilic). The most frequent complication of intermittent catheterisation is urinary tract infection (UTI), but satisfaction, preference and ease of use are also important to users. It is unclear which catheter designs, techniques or strategies affect the incidence of UTI, which are preferable to users and which are most cost effective.

OBJECTIVES

To compare one type of catheter design versus another, one type of catheter material versus another, aseptic catheterisation technique versus clean technique, single-use (sterile) catheters versus multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation versus catheterisation by others and any other strategies designed to reduce UTI and other complications or improve user-reported outcomes (user satisfaction, preference, ease of use) and cost effectiveness in adults and children using intermittent catheterisation for incomplete bladder emptying.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 September 2013), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques or strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived for each outcome where possible. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome. Because of trial heterogeneity, it was not always possible to combine data to give an overall estimate of treatment effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one trials met the inclusion criteria, including 13 RCTs and 18 cross-over trials. Most were small (less than 60 participants completed), although five trials had more than 100 participants. There was considerable variation in length of follow-up and definitions of UTI. Participant dropout was a problem for several trials, particularly where there was long-term follow-up to measure incidence of UTI. Fifteen trials were more than 10 years old and focused mainly on comparing different catheterisation techniques (e.g. single versus multiple-use) on clinical outcomes whereas, several more recent trials have focused on comparing different types of catheter designs or materials, especially coatings, and user preference. It was not possible to combine data from some trials owing to variations in the catheters tested and in particular the catheter coatings. Where there were data, confidence intervals around estimates were wide and hence clinically important differences in UTI and other outcomes could neither be identified nor reliably ruled out. No study assessed cost-effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a total of 31 trials, there is still no convincing evidence that the incidence of UTI is affected by use of aseptic or clean technique, coated or uncoated catheters, single (sterile) or multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation or catheterisation by others, or by any other strategy. Results from user-reported outcomes varied. The current research evidence is weak and design issues are significant. More well-designed trials are strongly recommended. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques and strategies.

WITHDRAWAN. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section

BACKGROUND

The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean delivery.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infectious complications in women undergoing cesarean delivery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (January 2002) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis or no treatment for both elective and non-elective cesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-one trials were included. Use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section substantially reduced the incidence of episodes of fever, endometritis, wound infection, urinary tract infection and serious infection after cesarean section. The reduction in the risk of endometritis with antibiotics was similar across different patient groups: the relative risk (RR) for endometritis for elective cesarean section (number of women = 2037) was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.64); the RR for non-elective cesarean section (n = 2132) was 0.39 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.46); and the RR for all patients (n = 11,937) was 0.39 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.43). Wound infections were also reduced: for elective cesarean section (n = 2015) RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.99); for non-elective cesarean section (n = 2780) RR 0.36 95% CI 0.26 to 0.51]; and for all patients (n = 11,142) RR 0.41 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.43).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The reduction of endometritis by two thirds to three quarters and a decrease in wound infections justifies a policy of recommending prophylactic antibiotics to women undergoing elective or non-elective cesarean section.