Literature DB >> 3801828

Restriction of long-term indwelling urethral catheterisation in the elderly.

H J Cools, J W Van der Meer.   

Abstract

Eighty-nine (16%) of 543 patients admitted to a chronic care centre in 1983 had an indwelling urethral catheter. Of the 89, 51 patients (57%) received the catheter in a general hospital, 4 (5%) at home and 34 (38%) in the centre. More than half of the catheters that were inserted in the hospital could be removed within 4 weeks of admission to the centre, implying that a more restricted use of indwelling catheters in hospitals is possible. Only 18% of the indwelling catheters remained in situ for the designated period of 1 month. The other catheters were changed before that time, mainly because of obstructed drainage or leakage of urine around the catheter. The incidence of bacteriuria among catheterised patients was 90%. The bacteria were multiresistant in 37% of these cases, compared with 25% of non-catheterised patients. Multiresistant microflora were present significantly more often in the urine of patients admitted from hospitals (irrespective of whether they had a catheter) and the catheterised residents of the centre than in that of the other patients (P less than 0.001). When all patients of the centre were considered, it was found that 30.6% were treated with antimicrobial agents in the course of the year; 10.9% were treated more than once a year. This latter group of patients received 58% of all prescribed antimicrobial drugs; 37% of them had an indwelling catheter. The majority of catheterised patients (65%) did not need antimicrobial treatment. No significant influence of catheterisation on mortality could be demonstrated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3801828     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1986.tb05912.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Urol        ISSN: 0007-1331


  8 in total

1.  Why are Foley catheters so vulnerable to encrustation and blockage by crystalline bacterial biofilm?

Authors:  David Stickler; Robert Young; Gwennan Jones; Nora Sabbuba; Nicola Morris
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2003-07-11

2.  Electrical microcurrent to prevent conditioning film and bacterial adhesion to urological stents.

Authors:  Michael Gabi; Lukas Hefermehl; Danijela Lukic; Raphael Zahn; Janos Vörös; Daniel Eberli
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-08-05

3.  Evaluation of a novel gel-based ureteral stent with biofilm-resistant characteristics.

Authors:  Brian M Rosman; Joao A B A Barbosa; Carlo P Passerotti; Marc Cendron; Hiep T Nguyen
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  The use of intraurethral prostatic spiral in high risk patients for surgery with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  G K Ozgür; A Sivrikaya; R Bilen; K Biberoğlu; H R Gümele
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  Long term urethral catheterisation in the elderly.

Authors:  R B Kinder
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-03-28

Review 6.  Catheter-related urinary tract infection.

Authors:  Lindsay E Nicolle
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 7.  Role of biofilm in catheter-associated urinary tract infection.

Authors:  Barbara W Trautner; Rabih O Darouiche
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.918

8.  The effect of EDTA instillations on the rate of development of encrustation and biofilms in Foley catheters.

Authors:  Steven L Percival; Nora A Sabbuba; Peter Kite; David J Stickler
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2009-05-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.