A prospective randomized study comparing a catheter‐valve with a standard drainage system

Abstract

Objective To determine if the use of a catheter‐valve rather than a standard drainage system decreases the morbidity associated with the use of a long‐term catheter. Patients and methods One hundred patients undergoing long‐term catheterization were recruited into a prospective randomized study to investigate the acceptability and determine any increase in infection associated with the use of a catheter‐valve, compared with the standard drainage system. Each patient participated in the study protocol for 3 months, during which the frequency of urinary tract infection was assessed, and the patients’ views obtained using a standard questionnaire and by interview. Results Ninety‐four patients completed the study; most (92%) were happy or satisfied with the valve, as opposed to only 35% of those using a standard drainage bag. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of urinary tract infections. Conclusion The patients who used the standard drainage system felt their level of activity was impaired, whereas the group who were using the valve did not. In the long‐term the valve was cheaper and caused less morbidity, but because it is constructed to allow one‐way flow, this was not associated with an increase in the incidence of urinary tract infections.