A large, randomized, controlled multicenter study in India with 1,000 patients included, published in the internationally renowned scientific journal “Antimicrobial resistance and infection control”, shows that urinary catheters with Bactiguard’s coating for infection prevention reduce the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) by 69 % compared to standard catheters.2
Catheter associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is the one of the most common healthcare associated infections, and often caused by indwelling urinary catheters.1 The catheter surface attracts bacteria and other microbes, which colonize it and may develop a biofilm leading to infection.
Bactiguard’s infection prevention urinary catheter, BIP Foley Catheter – Silicone, is an indwelling urinary catheter with Bactiguard coating, which is proven to significantly reduce symptomatic urinary tract infections.
The Bactiguard technology (Bactiguard Infection Protection) is based on a very thin noble metal alloy coating, firmly attached to the catheter surface. When in contact with fluids (urine), the noble metals create a galvanic effect which reduces microbial adhesion. This means that fewer bacteria adhere to the catheter surface, which reduces the risk of biofilm formation leading to infection.
The BIP Foley catheters are intended for patients catheterized longer than two days. Less than two days usage rarely leads to infection and a standard catheter can then be used.
The amount of noble metals at the surface of Bactiguard’s coating is very low and below all safety limits for each metal. The coating is firmly attached to the catheter and there is no release of any toxic or pharmacological quantities. This makes the technology both tissue friendly and safe as opposed to traditional coating technologies, that often depend on the release of substances that kill the bacteria, e.g. higher concentrations of silver ions, chlorhexidine or antibiotics.
The product is well proven, more than 100,000 patients have been included in clinical trials and over 200 million catheters have been used without any reported adverse events related to the coating.
Investing in prevention with BIP Foley catheters has been shown to reduce CAUTI in a cost-effective way. The cost savings are present in a wide variety of reimbursement systems. Several health economic evaluations have been conducted in Europe and USA.3-5 BIP Foley catheters are associated with lower costs related to length of hospital stays, lower treatment costs and improved patient quality of life.5
BIP Foley Catheter – Silicone is approved for both transurethral and suprapubic use for up to 90 days. The catheter is made of silicone and is available in many different sizes and lengths. Silicone is tissue friendly, hypoallergenic and causes less irritation than latex.
Silicone catheters are cuffed with sterile water for use up to 2 weeks. For longer term usage, glycerine solution should be used to avoid fluid diffusion.
The most commonly used tip for routine catheterization is the Nelaton tip. Due to the challenging curvature of the male urethra, a catheter with a curved tip – Timann tip – can be used to ease insertion. BIP Foley Catheter – Silicone is available with both Nelaton tip and Tiemann tip.
BIP Foley Catheter – Silicone is available with both Nelaton tip and Tiemann tip.
The Bactiguard coating is both on the inside and the outside of the catheter. There is also a hydrogel coating which reduces friction and increases patient comfort during insertion and removal of the catheter. Activate the hydrogel by lubricating the catheter with sterile water, saline or water-based gel for at least 20 seconds.
References:
1. Klevens RM et al. Estimating health-care associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002 Public Health Rep. 2007 Mar–Apr;122(2):160-6.
2. Kai-Larsen, Y., Grass, S., Mody, B. et al. 2021 Foley catheter with noble metal alloy coating for preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a large, multi-center clinical trial. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 10, 40 (2021).
3. Hidalgo Fabrellas et al. Enferm Intensiva. 2015; 26(2):54–62.
4. Karchmer TB et al, Arch Intern Med. 2000 Nov 27;160(21):3294–8
5. Saint S. et al. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160:2670–2675.
6. Lederer JW et al, J WOCN 2014; 41(5):1–8.
