Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: synopsis of the CATHETER II RCT

Johnson D, Tripathee S, Cooper D, Constable L, Omar MI, MacLennan S, Cotton S, Dimitropoulos K, Evans S, Hashim H, Kilonzo M, Larcombe J, Little P, MacLennan G, Murchie P, Myint PK, N'Dow J, Norrie J, Paterson C, Powell K, Scotland G, Thiruchelvam N, Young A, Abdel-fattah M
Record ID 32018015154
English
Authors' objectives: Approximately 90,000 people in the United Kingdom have a long-term catheter. Use of long-term catheters is associated with common adverse events including blockage of the catheter and symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Washout solutions are often used prophylactically to prevent these adverse events, but evidence for the benefits and potential harms is insufficient. Does the addition of weekly prophylactic washouts of the catheter to standard long-term catheter care improve the outcomes of adults with long-term catheter.
Authors' results and conclusions: Eighty of the planned 600 participants were recruited (26 saline; 27 acidic; 27 control). There was a reduction in incidence of blockages requiring treatment (per 1000 catheter days) from 20.92 (control) to 9.96 (saline) and 10.53 (acidic). The incidence rate ratio favoured the washout groups [saline 0.65 (97.5% confidence interval 0.24 to 1.77); p = 0.33 and acidic 0.59 (97.5% confidence interval 0.22 to 1.63); p = 0.25] but was not statistically significant. There was a reduction in the secondary outcome of symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotic use (per 1000 catheter days) from 8.05 (control) to 3.71 (saline) and 6.72 (acidic). The incidence rate ratio favoured the washout groups [saline 0.40 (97.5% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.80); p = 0.003 and acidic 0.98 (97.5% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.78); p = 0.93]; however, the significance should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size. There were few adverse events. Quality-of-life outcomes were similar between groups. Due to the low sample size, the health economic outcomes could not be analysed. The embedded qualitative work demonstrated that the study design was feasible and acceptable to healthcare professionals and participants involved with the trial. Healthcare professionals perceived the training of participants to have minimal impact on healthcare resources and participants were empowered to self-manage the washouts and integrate it into their routine care. There is a suggestion that regular prophylactic washout use may result in the reduction of catheter blockage and symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection. However, the results are inconclusive due to the small sample size. Participants found the washouts acceptable to use and could self-manage the washouts with training.
Authors' methods: A pragmatic three-arm multicentre open-label superiority randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Adults with long-term catheter in situ (any route or type) with no plans to discontinue long-term catheter use were recruited in a community setting in the United Kingdom. Participants received training to self-administer the washouts, with/without the assistance of a carer. Participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to standard long-term catheter care plus weekly prophylactic saline washouts; weekly prophylactic acidic washouts; or no prophylactic washouts. The primary clinical and health economic outcomes were catheter blockage requiring intervention (/1000 catheter days) up to 24 months post randomisation and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Outcome data were patient reported. COVID-19 led to recruitment difficulties and early termination of the study by the funder. Sample size was not met.
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2026
URL for additional information: English
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Full HTA
Country: England, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
  • Catheter-Related Infections
  • Catheters, Indwelling
  • Urinary Catheterization
  • Urinary Tract Infections
  • Adult
Contact
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Contact Email: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.