Intermittent catheterisation is the preferred bladder management approach for many people with lower urinary tract dysfunction, but it remains associated with complications such as urinary tract infection, urethral trauma and pain [1]. Structured patient support programmes may improve adherence, confidence and clinical outcomes, although evidence in this setting remains limited [2]. This study aimed to evaluate whether enrolment in a structured patient support programme improves outcomes in people using intermittent catheterisation, with particular focus on catheter-related complications and healthcare utilisation. A secondary aim was to explore whether outcomes differed according to catheter type.

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction enrolled in an intermittent catheterisation support programme. Eligible patients had participated for at least 6 months and had undergone at least 2 nurse-led assessments. Data were collected at programme enrolment and again after 6 months of follow-up. Outcomes of interest included recurrent urinary tract infection, urethral complications, pain, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and catheter type. A total of 754 patients met the inclusion criteria. The cohort included patients using conventional uncoated catheters and hydrophilic catheters with integrated amphiphilic surfactant technology. Comparative analyses were performed to evaluate change over time and differences between catheter groups.

Enrolment in the programme was associated with a reduction in intermittent catheterisation-related complications over 6 months. Recurrent urinary tract infection, urethral complications and pain were all reduced after programme participation. The overall burden of complications per patient also decreased. Patients using hydrophilic catheters, particularly those using a catheter with integrated amphiphilic surfactant technology, showed more favourable outcomes than those using conventional uncoated catheters. Healthcare utilisation also improved following programme enrolment, with clear reductions in hospital admissions and very low levels of intensive care unit admission at follow-up. These findings suggest that both structured nurse-led support and catheter choice may influence clinical outcomes.

A structured patient support programme for intermittent catheterisation was associated with clinically meaningful improvements across several complication domains, together with reduced use of acute healthcare resources. The more favourable outcomes observed in the hydrophilic catheter group are consistent with previous literature suggesting that catheter design may influence complication risk [3]. Taken together, these findings suggest that education, follow-up and device selection may act together to improve patient experience and safety. These observations are particularly relevant in settings where preventable complications place pressure on healthcare services.

A structured patient support programme was associated with fewer intermittent catheterisation-related complications and reduced healthcare utilisation over 6 months. Outcomes appeared more favourable in patients using a hydrophilic catheter with integrated amphiphilic surfactant technology. These findings support the integration of patient education, follow-up and appropriate catheter selection into routine intermittent catheterisation care.

Sartori AM, Kessler TM, Castro-Diaz DM, de Keijzer P, Del Popolo G, Ecclestone H, et al. Summary of the 2024 Update of the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Neurourology. Eur Urol. 2024;85(6):543-55.
Hasan SA, Neal-Herman L, Norman HS, Zhao JZ, Carlson A. Patient Support Program and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients Using Clean Intermittent Catheterization for Bladder Management. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2022;49(5):470-80.
eng D, Cheng L, Bai Y, Yang Y, Han P. Outcomes comparison of hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic catheters for patients with intermittent catheterization: An updated meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2020;43(5):633-5.