Evidence Hub

Do prophylactic catheter washouts reduce catheter associated urinary tract infections and catheter blockage compared to standard care in adults living with long-term catheters? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Edward S. Wong, C. Young, Yuhong Yuan, M. Abdel-Fattah, Muhammad Imran Omar

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic catheter washouts (PCWs) are often recommended to patients with long-term catheters (LTCs) to reduce symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection (S-CAUTI) and catheter blockage. This systematic review summarizes current evidence on the benefits and harms of regular PCWs for adults using LTCs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL (database inception to June 2024) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing PCWs to standard care, or different catheter washout solutions to each other. The review followed Cochrane Handbook methodology. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Detailed protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024553575).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included. The review found lower S-CAUTI rates in saline washout groups (SWGs) than no washout groups (NWGs) (mean difference [MD] -0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50-0.29; low certainty evidence; p=0.61) and lower S-CAUTI rates in any washout groups (WG) compared to NWGs (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.42-0.32; low certainty evidence; p=0.79). The review found reduced odds of catheter blockage in acidic washout groups (AWGs) than SWGs (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.03; very low certainty evidence; p=0.06). Airaksinen 1979 also found increased odds of greater encrustation in their NWG compared to their SWG (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17-2.25; very low certainty evidence; p=0.46). The review found that WGs had reduced…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free