Evaluation of a new PVC-free catheter material for intermittent catheterization: A prospective, randomized, crossover study

16Citations
Citations of this article
46Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is commonly used as a catheter material in catheters for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) but, owing mainly to environmental concerns, a PVC-free material has been proposed. The objective of this study was to compare patients' tolerability for catheters made of PVC and a newly developed PVC-free material. Material and methods. This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study in 104 male patients with maintained urethra sensibility who practised CIC. The patients evaluated in a randomized order a PVC and a PVC-free LoFric® catheter after 1 week's use of each. The material properties and tolerability, i.e. reported perceived discomfort, of each catheter were compared and adverse events documented. Results. Twenty-nine (28%) and 15 (14%) patients reported discomfort when using the PVC catheter and the PVC-free LoFric catheter, respectively. A comparison showed that five patients (5%) reported discomfort with the PVC-free and not with the PVC catheter, and 19 patients (18%) reported discomfort with the PVC and not with the PVC-free catheter (p = 0.0066). Forty patients reported a total of 91 adverse events, of which the most common were discomfort in terms of pain, a burning sensation and bleeding. Conclusions. Generally low discomfort rates were reported in the study population, suggesting a high tolerance for CIC with catheters of both the PVC and the PVC-free materials. The lowest discomfort was, however, found when CIC was performed using the PVC-free LoFric catheter. © Informa Healthcare.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Johansson, K., Greis, G., Johansson, B., Grundtmann, A., Pahlby, Y., Törn, S., … Carlsson, P. (2013). Evaluation of a new PVC-free catheter material for intermittent catheterization: A prospective, randomized, crossover study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology, 47(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2012.696136

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free