Introduction: The aim of the present study is to compare a hydrophilic catheter to the standard polyvinyl chloride catheter with regard to bacteriological safety and overall comfort in patients undergoing intravesical immuno- or chemotherapy for bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients (80 males, 20 females; median age 65.8 years, range 48–79 years) eligible for intravesical prophylaxis of superficial bladder cancer recurrences were randomized to receive intravesical therapy using a standard catheter (group A, n = 50) or a hydrophilic catheter (group B, n = 50). Urinalysis and urine culture were performed 2 days after catheterization. Comfort during catheterization was assessed by a 5-point visual analogue scale at the end of the first four instillations. Results: Urinary tract infection (UTI) was detected in 7.4% of catheterizations in group A, whereas it occurred in 3.5% of catheterizations in group B (p < 0.01). Escherichia coli was the most frequent pathogen regardless of the device used. At the end of each of the first four instillations, the mean score for discomfort was significantly higher in group A than in group B (p < 0.001), although catheterization was progressively better tolerated regardless of the device used (both p < 0.005). None of the patients were found to be suffering from orchitis, epididymitis or gross haematuria. Conclusion: Hydrophilic catheters may be used safely and are well tolerated by patients undergoing intravesical immuno- or chemotherapy. The hydrophilic catheter was associated with a significantly lower occurrence of UTI and higher acceptability compared to the standard device. These data should be considered with regard to patient compliance with intravesical therapy.

Keywords:
Bladder cancer, Urinary catheter, Intravesical chemotherapy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.