Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated urinary catheters for individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review

BJUI Compass, 2021 · DOI: 10.1111/bco2.63 · Published: January 1, 2021

Simple Explanation

This study reviews the cost-effectiveness of using hydrophilic-coated urinary catheters compared to uncoated catheters for people with spinal cord injuries. The review looks at various studies to see if the higher cost of hydrophilic catheters is justified by better health outcomes, such as fewer urinary tract infections. The aim is to help healthcare providers decide whether these catheters should be publicly funded, considering both costs and benefits.

Study Duration

Not specified

Participants

Individuals with spinal cord injury

Evidence Level

Systematic Review

Key Findings

1
Five studies found hydrophilic-coated catheters to be cost-effective compared to uncoated catheters.
2
Two studies found hydrophilic-coated catheters to be not cost-effective compared to uncoated catheters.
3
One study estimated that hydrophilic-coated catheters reduced the long-term health-care costs compared to uncoated catheters.

Research Summary

This systematic review evaluates the cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated versus uncoated catheters for individuals with spinal cord injury by analyzing existing economic evaluations. The review identifies and critically assesses eight relevant studies, considering factors like comparator types, long-term health impacts, and unit costs of treatment to explain discrepancies in reported cost-effectiveness. The study concludes that while evidence leans towards hydrophilic-coated catheters being cost-effective, particularly from a societal perspective, further research is needed to clarify their long-term impact on urinary tract infections and renal function.

Practical Implications

Healthcare Policy

The findings inform public health-care payers on funding decisions regarding hydrophilic-coated catheters, potentially improving access for spinal cord injury patients.

Clinical Practice

The study highlights the importance of considering long-term health impacts and individual patient needs when selecting catheter types for intermittent catheterization.

Future Research

The review identifies gaps in evidence, advocating for more studies on the long-term effects of hydrophilic-coated catheters on UTI risk and renal function.

Study Limitations

1
The study did not search gray literature databases, which may have led to the exclusion of a few potentially relevant citations.
2
Whether hydrophilic-coated catheters were considered cost-effective for each study was dependent on the study author's interpretation of the results.
3
Most of our included studies have limited generalizability.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Spinal Cord Injury