Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:15:09.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a Urinary Catheter with a Preconnected Closed Drainage Bag

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2017

Jane DeGroot-Kosolcharoen ,
Rhonda Guse  and
Jeffrey M. Jones
Jane DeGroot-Kosolcharoen*
Affiliation:
Medical, Nursing, and Research Services, Wm. S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin School of Nursing, Madison, Wisconsin Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
Rhonda Guse
Affiliation:
Medical, Nursing, and Research Services, Wm. S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin School of Nursing, Madison, Wisconsin Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
Jeffrey M. Jones
Affiliation:
Medical, Nursing, and Research Services, Wm. S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin School of Nursing, Madison, Wisconsin Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin
*
Wm. S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, 2500 Overlook Terrace, Madison, WI 53705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The incidence of hacteriuria, significant urinary tract infection, and cost associated with the use of two urinary catheter drainage systems were evaluated in a population of hospitalized adult males. A commercially available device comprised of a Foley catheter attached with a heat-shrunk plastic seal to the tubing of a closed drainage hag (preconnected system) was compared with a standard system that had the Foley catheter attached to the closed drainage hag after it had been inserted. Using a randomized prospective design, the performance of the preconnected system in 97 patients was compared with that of the standard system in 105 patients. Catheters were left in place a mean of 6.4 and 7.6 days in the respective groups. Bacteriuria occurred after catheter insertion in 11.3% of patients receiving the preconnected system and 13.3% of patients receiving the standard system (not statistically significant). When bacteriuria developed, it occurred within seven days of catheter insertion in 50% of instances, irrespective of drainage system employed, suggesting that manipulations related to catheter insertion were important in initiating bacteriuria. Significant urinary tract infections occurred in only 2% of all patients studied. The higher cost for purchasing the preconnected system was not warranted for the population of patients studied.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , February 1988 , pp. 72 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Gillespie, WA, Lennon, GG, Linton, KB: Prevention of urinary tract infection by means of closed drainage into a sterile plastic bag. Br Med J 1967; 3:90–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Thornton, GF, Andriole, VT: Bacteriuria during indwelling catheter drainage: II. Effect on a closed sterile drainage system. JAMA 1970; 214:339–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Kass, EH: Asymptomatic infections of the urinary tract. Tram Assoc Am Physicians 1956; 69:56–63.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Levin, J: Incidence and prevention of infection after urethral catheterization. Ann Intern Med 1964; 60:914–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Roberts, JBM, Linton, KB, Pollard, BR, et al: Long-term catheter drainage in the male. Br J Urol 1956; 37:63–72Google Scholar
6.Kunin, CM. McCormick, RC: Prevention of catheter-induced urinary-tract infections by sterile closed drainage. N Engl J Med 1966; 274:1155–1161.Google Scholar
7.Platt, R, Polk, BF, Murdock, P, et al: Mortality associated with nosocomial urinary tract infection. N Engl J Med 1982; 307:637–642.Google Scholar
8.McAllister, TA, Arneil, GC. Barr, W, et al: Assessment of plain dip-slide quantitation of batteriuria. Nephron 1973; 11:111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Sweet, DE. Goodpasture, HC. Holl, K, et al: Evaluation of H2O2 prophylaxis of bacteriuria in patients with long-term indwelling Foley catheters: A randomized controlled study. Infect Control 1985; 6:263–266.Google Scholar
10.Burke, JP. Garibaldi, RA, Britt, MB, et al: Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections: Efficacy of daily meatalcare regimens. Am J Med 1981; 70:655–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Burke, JP, Larsen, RA, Stevens, LE: Nosocomial bacteriuria: Estimating the potential for prevention by closed sterile urinary drainage. Infect Control 1986; 7:96–99.Google Scholar
12.Warren, JW, Piatt, R, Thomas, RJ, et al: Antibiotic irrigation and catheter-associated urinary-tract infections. Ar Engl J Med 1978; 299:570–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Finkelberg, R, Kunin, CM: Clinical evaluation of closed urinary drainage systems. JAMA 1969; 207:1657–1662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Scheckler, WE: Hospital costs ot nosocomial infections; A prospective three-month study in a community hospital. Infect Control 1980; 1:150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar