Condom Versus Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Randomized Trial

Authors

  • Sanjay Saint MD, MPH,

    1. From the *Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan§Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, WashingtonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Samuel R. Kaufman MA,

    1. From the *Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan§Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, WashingtonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mary A. M. Rogers PhD,

    1. From the *Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan§Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, WashingtonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Paul D. Baker ARNP,

    1. From the *Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan§Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, WashingtonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kathleen Ossenkop ARNP,

    1. From the *Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan§Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, WashingtonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Benjamin A. Lipsky MD

    1. From the *Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan§Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division, Seattle, WashingtonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
    Search for more papers by this author

Address correspondence to Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, Room 7E08, 300 NIB—Campus Box 0429, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: saint@umich.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To 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.

Ancillary