Switching from intermittent catheterization with single-use catheter to a reusable catheter has a negative impact on quality of life.

Abstract

Purpose: It has been proposed that reusable catheters are more cost effective and environmentally sustainable than single-use catheters intended for intermittent catheterization (IC). However, the aspect of individuals' well-being and preference for catheter type is not considered. In this study, we investigated the impact on individuals' health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) when testing a reusable catheter.

Materials and methods: The study was an open-labeled, single-arm, multicenter investigation with a treatment period of 28 days. Forty subjects using single-use hydrophilic catheters were accustomed to a reusable catheter for managing IC. HR-QoL was evaluated by the Intermittent-Self Catheterization Questionnaire (ISC-Q). Additionally, satisfaction was evaluated by the Intermittent Catheterization Satisfaction Questionnaire (InCaSa-Q). The difference in total score was analyzed using a mixed linear model. Furthermore, preference for IC (single-use vs. reusable) was assessed and microbial evaluation of the catheters was performed.

Results: The total ISC-Q score measuring HR-QoL decreased significantly by 28% (p < 0.001). Two of the four subdomains (ease-of-use and discreetness) also decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The total InCaSa-score and all four subdomains evaluating satisfaction decreased significantly (p < 0.005). The primary study results were supported by the fact that 90.9% of subjects preferred to use a single-use catheter for IC. Furthermore, 50% of reusable catheters were contaminated with bacteria.

Conclusion: Switching from single-use to reusable IC resulted in a significant decrease in HR-QoL and satisfaction. Moreover, the vast majority preferred the single-use catheter due to handling and convenience. The users' rights to their preferred bladder management method should be acknowledged.