The content of this page is intended for healthcare professionals only.

Are you a professional?

UVI

Lamin and Newman (2016)
Clean intermittent catheterization revisited 
Review of intermittent catheterization summarizing important features related to successful intermittent catheterization. It highlights the importance of infection prevention among catheter users and identifies hydrophilic coated catheters as a cost-effective contributor. It acknowledges that hydrophilic catheters may vary in the quality of coatings and LoFric and the Urotonic™ Surface Technology are described.

Lucas EJ, Baxter C, Singh C, Mohamed AZ, Li B, Zhang J, Jayanthi VR, Koff SA, VanderBrink B, Justice SS. (2016)
Comparison of the microbiological milieu of patients randomized to either hydrophilic or conventional PVC catheters for clean intermittent catheterization
Randomized controlled trial in patients with myelomeningocele, comparing urine bacteria flora between 25 LoFric users and 25 users of non-coated plastic catheters. After a 1 year follow-up, the results showed a 40% reduction of the average number of potentially pathogenic bacteria in the LoFric group.

Li L, Ye W, Ruan H, Yang B, Zhang S (2013)
Impact of hydrophilic catheters on urinary tract infections in people with spinal cord injury: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 
Evidence of a 64% risk reduction for UTI with hydrophilic coating compared to non-hydrophilic catheters.
Meta-analysis of 464 patients and five randomized controlled trials (RCT) with hydrophilic catheters, whereof three with LoFric.

Cardenas DD, Hoffman JM (2009)
Hydrophilic catheters versus noncoated catheters for reducing the incidence of urinary tract infections: a randomized controlled trial 
Evidence of fewer antibiotic treated UTIs in patients using LoFric compared to plastic catheters.
1 year follow-up on 22 LoFric users and 23 PVC -users.

Vapnek JM, Maynard FM, Kim J (2003)
A prospective randomized trial of the LoFric hydrophilic coated catheter versus conventional plastic catheter for clean intermittent catheterization
Example of a significant decrease in the incidence of UTI with the use of LoFric compared to uncoated plastic catheters with added lubricant.
1 year study on 22 LoFric users and 26 PVC –users.

Bakke A, Digranes A, Hoisaeter PA (1997)
Physical predictors of infection in patients treated with clean intermittent catheterization: 7-year study
Long term evidence that CIC using LoFric reduces the risk for urethral complications, including UTI. For example, 65% UTI-free and 39% with sterile urine after long term LoFric use.
7 year follow up on 155 LoFric patients.

Waller L, Jonsson O, Norlen L, Sullivan L (1995)
Clean intermittent catheterization in spinal cord injury patients: long-term followup of a hydrophilic low friction technique
Evidence on the long term use of hydrophilic catheters to reduce UTI and prevent urethral trauma.
5-9 year follow up on 30 LoFric patients.

Bakke A, Vollset SE (1993)
Risk factors for bacteriuria and clinical urinary tract infection in patients treated with clean intermittent catheterization 
Study discussing the risk factors of acquiring UTI.
13 month study on 302 user (95% LoFric).

Bakke A, Vollset SE, Hoisaeter PA, Irgens LM (1993)
Physical complications in patients treated with clean intermittent catheterization
Evidence on fewer and less severe infections associated with LoFric use compared to uncoated plastic catheters with added lubricant. For example, patients using uncoated catheters had a 76% higher infection score.
13 month Study on 302 users (95% LoFric).

Bakke A, Digranes A (1991)
Bacteriuria in patients treated with clean intermittent catheterization
Evidence on the low frequency of UTI with hydrophilic catheters (LoFric). For example, 86% of patients showed no clinical signs of UTI during the study period.
13 month Study on 302 users (95% LoFric).

Del