Elsevier

European Urology

Volume 59, Issue 4, April 2011, Pages 518-523
European Urology

Platinum Priority – Bladder Cancer
Editorial by Joseph L. Chin on pp. 524–525 of this issue
Irrigation of Continent Catheterizable Ileal Pouches: Tap Water Can Replace Sterile Solutions Because It Is Safe, Easy, and Economical

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Continent catheterizable ileal pouches require regular irrigations to reduce the risk of bacteriuria and urinary tract infections (UTIs).

Objective

Our aim was to compare the UTI rate, patient friendliness, and costs of standard sterile irrigation versus irrigation with tap water.

Design, setting, and participants

Twenty-three patients participated in a prospective randomized two-arm crossover single-center trial. Aseptic intermittent self-catheterization (ISC) combined with sterile sodium chloride (NaCl) 0.9% irrigation was compared with clean ISC and irrigation with tap water (H2O) during two study periods of 90 d each.

Intervention

Patients underwent daily pouch irrigations with NaCl 0.9% solution or tap water.

Measurements

Urine nitrite dipstick tests were evaluated daily; urine culture (UC) and patient friendliness were evaluated monthly. Costs were documented.

Results and limitations

A total of 3916 study days with nitrite testing and irrigation were analyzed, 1876 (48%) in the NaCl arm and 2040 (52%) in the H2O arm. In the NaCl arm, 418 study days (22%) with nitrite-positive dipsticks were recorded, 219 d (11%) in the H2O arm, significantly fewer (p = 0.01). Of the 149 UCs, 96 (64%) were positive, 48 in each arm, revealing a total of 16 different germs. All patients preferred the H2O method. Monthly costs were up to 20 times lower in the H2O arm.

Conclusions

Pouch irrigation with sterile NaCl 0.9% solution and tap water had comparable rates of positive UC. Irrigation with tap water significantly lowered the incidence of nitrite-positive study days and was substantially less costly and more patient friendly than NaCl irrigation. We therefore recommend the use of tap water (or bottled water) instead of sterile NaCl 0.9% solution for daily irrigation of continent catheterizable ileal pouches.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12610000618055, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12610000618055.aspx.

Introduction

For patients requiring urinary diversion, a continent catheterizable urinary reservoir can allow near normal physical integrity and a good quality of life. The need for intermittent self-catheterization (ISC), however, leads to an increased risk of bacteriuria [1]. To reduce the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and mucus plug formation, daily pouch irrigation is recommended to eliminate microbes and evacuate the intestinal mucus [2]. Several studies have shown that the presence of mucus correlates with bacteriuria in patients with bladder substitutes or ileal conduits [3], [4]. Pouch irrigation with a sterile solution (eg, isotonic saline or Ringer lactate solution) is considered standard.

A potential advantage of irrigation with tap water is its hypo-osmolarity. Levina et al showed that the exposure of Escherichia coli to a hypo-osmolar medium results in loss of viability and lysis of the microbes [5]. If tap water would prove to be as efficient at pouch irrigation as sterile solutions, it would likely be more patient friendly and less costly than sterile solutions. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

A consecutive series of 23 patients (3 men, 20 women; median age: 61 yr; range: 29–71 yr) with a continent catheterizable ileal pouch and no known preexisting chronic infection was randomized in a prospective two-arm crossover study. Patients were enrolled in the study a median of 38 mo (range: 3–121 mo) after pouch construction (Table 1). All patients gave written informed consent.

The surgical technique employed to construct the ileal pouch is similar to that used for orthotopic bladder

Results

All 23 patients completed both 90-d study periods except for 2 patients who refused the crossover to NaCl after the first study period with H2O.

A total of 3916 (100%) study days were analyzed, 1876 d (48%) in the NaCl arm and 2040 d (52%) in the H2O arm. There were 418 (22%) nitrite-positive days in the NaCl arm and 219 (11%) in the H2O arm, a significant difference (p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.26) (Fig. 2).

Of the 149 (100%) routinely collected UCs, 96 (64%) tested positive and 53

Discussion

Patients with a continent urinary diversion are at high risk for UTI [1], [10], [11] and are therefore advised to irrigate their pouches regularly for their lifetime. They are usually instructed to irrigate the pouch with sterile NaCl 0.9% solution. This prospective study demonstrates that patients using sterile NaCl 0.9% solution had significantly more nitrite-positive study days (22%) than the same patients using tap water (11%). The ratio of positive UCs to number of study days did not

Conclusions

Using tap water for ileal pouch irrigation significantly reduced the incidence of nitrite-positive study days while not changing the positive UC rate compared with that of NaCl 0.9% irrigation with comparable microbiologic spectra. Similarly, a trend towards fewer antibiotic treatments for symptomatic UTI was observed in the H2O arm versus the NaCl arm. All patients preferred the use of tap water as easier, more patient friendly, and considerably less expensive. We therefore recommend the use

Naresh


Author contributions: Urs E. Studer had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Studer, Birkhäuser, Schürch, Burkhard, Willener, Ochsner, Zehnder, Thalmann.

Acquisition of data: Birkhäuser, Ochsner, Zehnder, Roth, Burkhard, Willener, Thalmann, Studer.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Birkhäuser, Studer, Zehnder, Roth.

Drafting of the manuscript: Birkhäuser, Zehnder, Studer.

References (19)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (13)

  • Neurogenic Bladder:: Assessment and Operative Management

    2022, Urologic Clinics of North America
    Citation Excerpt :

    After catheter removal, we recommend once daily irrigation with tap water. Tap water is a safe, cheap, convenient, and environmentally friendly alternative to bottles of sterile saline.34 We perform a renal-bladder ultrasound on all patients with NGB on an annual basis.

  • Intravesical bacteriophages for treating urinary tract infections in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

    2021, The Lancet Infectious Diseases
    Citation Excerpt :

    More surprising was the similar primary outcome success for both bacteriophage and placebo instillation, which we hypothesise was due to a therapeutic effect of a mechanical reduction of the bacterial load following bladder irrigation. This is supported by Birkhäuser and colleagues,23 who reported that daily bladder irrigation with tap water reduces the bacterial load and the subsequent need for antibiotic treatment for UTI in a randomised controlled trial in patients with ileal pouches. The effect of mechanical reduction of the bacterial load would also have been expected for the Pyophage solution, thus bringing into question any inherent direct antibacterial activity of the applied bacteriophages.

  • Efficacy of Long-Acting Octreotide on Reducing Mucus Production in Patients With Ileal Neobladder

    2017, Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
    Citation Excerpt :

    Some authors have suggested using single-J ureteral stents. Urethral catheters, cystostomy tubes, and external ureteral stents may be used simultaneously to irrigate the neobladder, thus preventing catheter obstruction caused by mucus secretion.8 By using cystostomy and external ureteral catheters at the same time, the patient would have 4 catheters in addition to drains in place for 2 to 3 weeks—a cumbersome situation for the patient.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text