Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of Sterile Versus Clean Indwelling Catheter Care in Preventing Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections at a Tertiary Care Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A. Mittal, Deepesh Swami, V. Panwar, B. Omar, Kunal Malhotra, Kanta Bairwa, Jayakrishna Sahu, A. Mandal

Cureus, 2025

346 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is a leading hospital-acquired infection, contributing to increased morbidity and healthcare costs. While sterile catheter care is standard, major guidelines recommend clean maintenance care, though debate continues. Objective The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of sterile versus clean indwelling catheter care in preventing CAUTI. Methods A participant-blind, computer-generated, stratified block randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary care center. Patients with sterile baseline urine cultures were randomized to either the sterile or clean catheter care group. Data collection continued until catheter removal, hospital discharge with catheter in situ, Day 14 of catheterization, or onset of CAUTI symptoms, whichever occurred first. CAUTI symptoms including fever > 38°C, rigors, pus discharge, suprapubic pain, agitation, and confusion were monitored. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 12%. Analyses were performed per protocol; no intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results Among 346 participants, CAUTI occurred in 7.5% of the clean group and 6.9% of the sterile group (p = 0.83). Group assignment was not associated with CAUTI in adjusted analysis, while catheter duration was the strongest independent predictor (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.262, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.135-1.400). The overall incidence was 20.64 per 1,000 catheter days, with a median…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 346 participants or records.

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