Study objectives: To determine whether the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria differs between the use of a complex closed drainage system (CCDS) with a preattached catheter, antireflux valve, drip chamber, and povidone-iodine releasing cartridge, and a two-chamber open drainage system (TCOS) in ICU patients.
Design: Prospective, nonrandomized, controlled trial.
Setting: Medical/surgical/trauma ICU in a university hospital.
Patients: Two hundred twenty-four ICU patients requiring an indwelling urinary catheter.
Intervention: We compared the rate of acquisition of bacteriuria in two groups of consecutive patients (n = 113 and n = 111, respectively) who underwent bladder catheterization with a TCOS during the first 6 months and with a CCDS during the next 6 months. Urinary catheters were managed by a team of trained nurses following the same written protocol. No prophylactic antibiotics were administered, either during management of catheter placements or catheter withdrawal, but 75% of patients received one or more antimicrobial medications for treatment of infected sites other than the urinary tract. Urine samples were obtained weekly for the duration of catheterization and within 24 h after catheter removal, and each time symptoms of urinary infection were suspected. Only patients who required an indwelling catheter for > 48 h were evaluated.
Measurements and results: There was no statistical difference in the rate of bacteriuria between the two groups. Bacteriuria occurred in 11.5% and 13.5% of patients, and was diagnosed on day 14 +/- 8 and 13 +/- 9 of catheterization (mean +/- SD) for the TCOS and the CCDS, respectively. A CCDS cost $3 (US dollars) more than the TCOS.
Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the effectiveness of a TCOS and a CCDS in ICU patients. No differences were noted between the two systems (alpha = 0.05). The higher cost of a CCDS is not justified for ICU patients.