Skip to main content

Indwelling catheter vs intermittent catheterization: is there a difference in UTI susceptibility?



Patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) often rely on some type of catheterization for bladder emptying. Intermittent catheterization (IC) is considered the gold standard and is preferred over continuous catheterization, since it is considered to cause fewer urinary tract infections (UTIs) than indwelling catheterization. The main objective of our study was to describe UTI prevalence (at visit) and incidence (within the last 12 months) and urine culture characteristics between patients using an indwelling catheter versus (vs) those performing IC.


In this cross-sectional study, we prospectively evaluated from 02/2020 to 01/2021 patients with NLUTD undergoing urine cultures for prophylactic reasons or due to UTI symptoms. At visit, all patients underwent a standardized interview on current UTI symptoms as well as UTI history and antibiotic consumption within the past year. Patients using an indwelling catheter (n = 206) or IC (n = 299) were included in the analysis. The main outcome was between-group differences regarding UTI characteristics.


Patients using an indwelling catheter were older (indwelling catheter vs IC: median 66 (Q1-Q3: 55—77) vs 55 (42—67) years of age) and showed a higher Charlson comorbidity index (indwelling catheter vs IC: median 4 (Q1-Q3: 2–6) vs 2 (1–4) (both p < 0·001).

A total of 40 patients from both groups were diagnosed with a UTI at visit (indwelling catheters vs IC: 8% (16/206) vs 8% (24/299); p = 0·782), and the number of UTIs within the past 12 months was not significantly different between groups. Overall, Escherichia coli (21%), Enterococcus faecalis (17%), and Klebsiella spp. (12%) were the most frequently detected bacteria.


In this cohort of patients with NLUTD, we did not find relevant differences in UTI frequency between groups. These results suggest that UTI-related concerns should not be given undue emphasis when counseling patients for catheter-related bladder emptying methods.

Peer Review reports


Many patients with neurological disease present with bladder storage and voiding symptoms, a situation summarized under the term neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) [1]. Optimal long-term management of the lower urinary tract often requires assisted bladder emptying and the use of some type of catheterization [1, 2]. Major guidelines recommend intermittent catheterization (IC) over continuous catheterization if cognition and manual dexterity allow for it [2, 3]. Besides an improved quality of life and sexual well-being, IC is thought to cause fewer urethral complications, less stone disease, less upper urinary tract damage, and does not require health care visits for catheter changes, compared to indwelling catheters [4]. In addition to these advantages, IC is thought to cause fewer urinary tract infections (UTIs) than indwelling catheterization, an argument often prioritized in patient counseling [2, 3]. However, only limited data is available to support this assumption.

Recurrent UTIs are a major problem in patients with NLUTD, as they negatively influence health-related quality of life and have potential life-threatening consequences [2, 5]. Diagnostic challenges include an overlap of symptoms typically regarded as UTI-related, such as urinary urgency, frequency, and loss of urine. Moreover, individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI) might not report pain and dysuria at all, making UTI diagnosis more difficult [2]. The requirement of an indwelling catheter or IC additionally complicates the situation further for clinical decision-making, as bacteriuria, leukocyturia, hematuria, and positive nitrite are common findings [6]. While there is an agreement that asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) in catheterized patients should not be treated [2, 3, 5], no consistent definition of UTI in patients with NLUTD exists and no general recommendations for when antibiotics should be used to treat ambiguous symptoms are available [6,7,8]. This often results in overtreatment with antibiotics and significant strain on the patient, the caregiver, and the healthcare system, not only economically [9], but also increasing the risk for the development of multidrug-resistant organisms [10].

The goal of this study was to describe differences in UTI frequency and microbiological characteristics between patients using continuous catheterization and those performing IC.



Between 02/2020 and 01/2021, a consecutive series of 595 patients with NLUTD relying on any type of catheterization and undergoing urine culture for any reason were evaluated in a cross-sectional fashion at our tertiary neuro-urology department (Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland) for participation in this study (Fig. 1). Of these, 505 patients (37% (188/505) females and 63% (317/505) males) could be included. In our department, patients with an indwelling catheter are instructed to regularly clamp the catheter during the day to preserve bladder capacity (if possible) and to leave the catheter on continuous drainage during the night for comfort reasons. Indwelling catheters are generally changed every 6–8 weeks. Patients relying on intermittent catheterization are trained to perform catheterization 4–6 times in 24 h. In both groups, recommended urinary bladder target volumes are between 350 and 550 mL. Study exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, incomplete data sets (e.g., incomplete medical history or laboratory/microbiological results), and particularly vulnerable persons. This study was approved by the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zürich, Switzerland (BASEC-Nr. 2021–02401). All patients provided written informed consent, for the reuse of medical data for research purposes. This study was performed in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and in line with the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH), Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines (E6) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO, 14,155:2021–5). STROBE (Strengthening of Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; see Appendix) guidelines were used to promote quality reporting.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Patient flow chart. Flow chart of included patients between 02/2022 and 01/2021 divided for bladder management and presence of a urinary tract infection (UTI)

Investigation and intervention

All subjects underwent neuro-urological assessment, including patient history and clinical examination [1]. If urine culture was indicated (i.e., for prophylactic reasons prior to invasive diagnostics and/or surgery or due to UTI symptoms), patients were asked to provide a written informed consent and underwent a structured interview on UTI history based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Urinary Tract Infection Basic Data Set including additional questions on UTI frequency and antibiotic consumption within the last 12 months [11].

Patients with an indwelling catheter had the catheter replaced prior to urine culturing, and in all other patients, urine was collected by sterile in- and out-catheterization. Urine cultures were analyzed in compliance with international recommendations (ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and SN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018), and bacteriuria was defined by the presence of ≥ 103 colony forming units (CFU) in the urine [12]. Pathogen identification on urine cultures was performed by microscopy, standard biochemical identification methods, and matrix-assisted laser desorption time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF). Antimicrobial resistance was identified in compliance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Guidelines and classified following the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) Guidelines [13].

The presence of UTI at visit was defined as a positive urine culture with ≥ 103 CFU in combination with at least one clinical symptom suggestive of UTI, including fever, hematuria, and bladder or flank pain without any other discernible cause, as well as the new onset or acute worsening of urgency, incontinence, increased catheterization frequency, unexplained spasticity, or autonomic dysreflexia. Solely the presence of pyuria, cloudy, or foul-smelling urine was not regarded as a UTI, but was still recorded and these cases were classified as ABU. ABU was defined as the presence of ≥ 103 CFU in urine specimens of patients without any of the symptoms/signs described above referable to UTI [14].

All subjects were interviewed on how many antibiotic therapies were prescribed (by primary care providers and/or specialists) within the last 12 months for (suspected) UTIs or for any other indications. To evaluate UTI incidence, any antibiotic therapy prescribed for (suspected) UTIs within the last 12 months was counted as UTI, irregardless of availability of a positive urine culture [2, 5].


The primary outcome was the prevalence of UTI at the time of patient visit for patients using an indwelling catheter in comparison to patients performing IC.

The secondary outcomes consisted of number of UTI diagnoses/number of antibiotic therapy cycles for UTI during the previous 12 months, uropathogen characteristics, and antibiotic susceptibility patterns within and between groups, as well as clinical and microbiological factors associated with UTI. To account for potential recall bias, only the number of UTIs within the last 12 months is reported instead of using the definition of recurrent UTIs (i.e. ≥ 2 infections in 6 months or ≥ 3 infections in one year).

Statistical analysis and data management

Data distribution was tested by Q-Q plots. Normally distributed data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), non-normal data as median and 25th (Q1) and 75th (Q3) percentile, and categorical data as numbers and percentages. For comparisons between unrelated samples (i.e., patients using an indwelling catheter vs patients performing IC), the unpaired t-test was used for approximately normally distributed data and the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test for non-normal distributed data. The chi-square-test or the Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of unrelated binary data where applicable.

Univariate logistic regressions were performed to analyze the association between type of catheterization, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), number of UTIs in the past 12 months, and age. Odds ratios (OR) are presented with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the coefficient estimates. Results are presented both unadjusted and adjusted for the method of bladder emptying. A p-value of < 0·05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted in R version 4.1.2 (2021–11-01) (R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.


Patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The indwelling catheter group consists of both, 34% (70/206) of patients with a transurethral catheter and 66% (136/206) of patients with a suprapubic catheter. Overall, no meaningful clinical or microbiological differences were found between the patients with a transurethral versus suprapubic catheter, so they were considered as a single group, i.e. patients with an indwelling catheter and compared to those performing IC. Detailed information on patients with an indwelling (transurethral and suprapubic) catheter are provided in the supplement (including Supplement Table 1, Supplement Table 2, Supplement Table 3, and Supplement Fig. 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of the study population
Table 2 Association between clinical parameters and UTI diagnosis. Logistic regression of UTI diagnosis at the time of patient visit with and without adjustment for catheter type
Table 3 Distribution of isolated bacteria in urine cultures and antibiotic resistances

The most common underlying diagnoses for NLUTD were spinal cord injury (SCI), spinal canal stenosis, and multiple sclerosis. Patients using an indwelling catheter were older (median: 66 (Q1-Q3: 55—77) vs 55 (42—67) years of age; p < 0·001), and had a higher CCI (median: 4 (Q1-Q3: 2—6) vs 2 (1—4); p < 0·001) than patients performing IC. In case of SCI, patients using an indwelling catheter presented with a higher lesion level (indwelling catheter vs IC: tetraplegia 25% (51/206) vs 9% (26/299); paraplegia 26% (54/206) vs 33% (99/299); p < 0.001).

At the time of patient visit, a UTI was diagnosed in 8% (16/206) of patients using an indwelling catheter and 8% (24/299) of patients performing IC (p = 0·782). In case of UTI, reported symptoms included bladder pain (70%, 28/40), new onset or acute worsening of urgency (43%, 17/40), cloudy urine (43%, 17/40), foul smelling urine (35%, 14/40), fever (25%, 10/40), new onset of incontinence (20%, 8/40), unexplained spasticity (13%, 5/40), lethargy and feeling of unease (13%, 5/40), hematuria (10%, 4/40), kidney pain (8%, 3/40), nausea and vomiting (3%, 3/40), and others (13%, 5/40).

At least one UTI was diagnosed in 46% (95/206) and 44% (131/299) (p = 0·674) of patients > 2 UTIs within the last 12 months were found in 8% (17/206) and 11% (33/299) (p = 0·380) of patients using an indwelling catheter or performing IC, respectively. Frequently prescribed antibiotics for past UTIs were beta-lactams (penicillins or cephalosporins) (11%, 57/505), quinolones (7%, 33/505), and sulfonamide/trimethoprim (4%, 20/505). A UTI within the past 12 months was the only factor that was significantly associated (p < 0·001) with UTI diagnosis at visit (Table 2).

Microbial growth was found in 85% (428/505) of the urine cultures, of which 8% (40/505) were according to our definition UTIs and 77% (388/505) were ABU. Polymicrobial growth was found in 52% (224/428) of all positive cultures and was significantly more prevalent in patients using an indwelling catheter than IC (indwelling catheter vs IC 78% (147/189) vs 32% (77/239); p < 0·001) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Urine culture characteristics. Urine culture results show percentages of patients without bacterial growth (no growth), detection of one species of bacteria (monomicrobial), or multiple bacterial species (polymicrobial) in patients using an indwelling catheter or performing intermittent catheterization

From the 428 positive urine cultures 868 pathogens were isolated. Overall, Escherichia coli (21% (171/868)), Enterococcus faecalis (17% (147/868)), and Klebsiella spp. (12% (106/868)) were the most commonly detected bacterial species. E. faecalis was more frequently found in patients using an indwelling catheter, while E. coli was more frequently found in patients performing IC (p = 0·011) (Table 3). Resistance rates for the commonly prescribed antibiotics were moderate, ranging from 1%-38% (Table 3).

Discussion and interpretation

Main findings

When investigating a cohort of over 500 patients with NLUTD relying on any type of catheterization for bladder emptying, no differences in UTI prevalence (at visit) or incidence (within the last 12 months) were found between patients using an indwelling catheter or performing IC. While IC is the preferred management for patients with NLUTD who cannot effectively empty their bladders because it is associated with fewer general complications [15], there seems to be no reason to choose one catheterization approach over the other from an infection risk perspective. However, significant between-group differences in bacterial species distributions and the presence of mono- versus polymicrobial urine cultures were detected. These findings indicate that the type of bladder catheterization might influence microbial population characteristics. Importantly, as detected bacterial species vary significantly between patients with NLUTD, and even more from the non-neurological population [5], urine culture is mandatory in any UTI treatment protocol for catheterizing patients.

Findings in context of existing evidence

UTIs are a major problem in patients with NLUTD, and incidence ranges from 1–10/year depending on the definition of UTI [16]. In the SCI population, UTI remains a significant health burdens and accounts, according to a retrospective cohort study, for more than 50% of all emergency visits [17] and most infection-related hospitalizations [18]. In our cohort, less than 10% reported > 2 infections within the last 12 months indicating a comparatively low incidence compared to available literature. However, the overall ABU rate (77%, 388/505) was comparable with existing evidence [2, 14]. There are various reasons for this: foremost, there is no internationally accepted standardized definition for UTIs in patients with NLUTD or for patients performing IC [8], and relevant heterogeneity for both clinical and laboratory criteria exists [8], which hinders comparison. Berger et al. [20] demonstrated that depending on the definition the rate of diagnosed UTIs in the same cohort is 14–45%. Our conservative approach and prudent use of antibiotic therapy, in line with a strict antibiotic stewardship program in our department, might have further contributed to a restrictive UTI diagnosis. The influence of UTI-prophylactic measures used by 28% of our patients on these results remain uncertain, especially as prophylaxis was more common in patients with recurrent infections.

Indwelling catheterization is generally considered to increase the risk for UTI compared to IC; as supported by a systematic review including 2321 patients [21]. However, in our cohort of over 500 patients, no significant differences were observed between the methods of catheter-based bladder drainage. Upon closer evaluating of the systematic review [21], only two of six included studies comparing indwelling transurethral catheterization with IC and only one of four studies comparing indwelling suprapubic catheterization with IC revealed significant differences. Notably, one of the studies contributing significant results, which had a major impact on promoting IC [22], was only available as conference abstract at the time of literature search. Insights from the later published full article revealed that data on UTI frequency was assessed retrospectively in a highly subjective manner, not by providing patients a clear definition of UTI but by asking “How many UTIs (including bladder or kidney infections) have you had over the past 12 months?” [22], in our cohort antibiotic consumption was a prerequisite for past UTIs. Furthermore, one retrospective study presenting a significant difference between emptying methods, published by McGuire and Savastano in 1986 [23], reported febrile UTI in 92% (12/13) and 32% (7/22) of female SCI patients using an indwelling catheter or performing IC, respectively, within a mean follow-up period of seven years. While all patients with an indwelling catheter presented with bladder stone complications, none of the patients in the IC group presented with bladder stones. In our study, only 2% (10/505) of patients suffered from UTI-related febrile complications, indicating relevant differences in patient selection compared to McGuire’s work.

The most commonly encountered bacteria in our study were E. coli, E. faecalis, and Klebsiella spp. In contrast, our previous study [6] detected Proteus mirabilis more often than E. faecalis; however, this study additionally included spontaneous voiders (35%) and the fraction of patients relying on indwelling catheters (21%), which harbored significantly more E. faecalis, was low. A chart review by Pannek et al. [24] in NLUTD patients showed similar results for the five most common detected bacteria in the outpatient setting, and comparable bacterial distribution and abundance. The general bacterial spectrum and resistance rates of our cohort depicts comparable results in the context of existing literature investigating antibiotic resistance in central Europe [24]. Since bacterial resistance is distinctly dependent on regional factors influencing resistance rates, broadly implemented antibiotic stewardship positively impacts antibiotic resistance [25]. Compared to patients suffering from an acute uncomplicated cystitis, where E. coli is the most frequent uropathogen (75–95%) and other bacteria (mainly Enterobacteriaceae) are detected only occasionally [26], the variation in the NLUTD population is different.

Implications for practice

The majority of our patients exhibited bacteriuria. According to all major guidelines [2, 3, 5, 14] ABU generally does not require treatment, and the diagnosis of a UTI should consider both clinical symptoms and laboratory findings. However, evidence shows that a positive urine culture remains a significant predictor for antibiotic prescription after routine urine testing in the SCI population [27]. Therefore, urine cultures should be performed with clear indications. Given the rising threat of multidrug-resistant bacteria, appropriate use of antibiotics (i.e., antibiotic stewardship) is crucial, especially for vulnerable populations such as patients with NLUTD. The impact of our strict antibiotic stewardship program on resistance rates (0%-38%) for commonly prescribed antibiotics, cannot be answered with our study design. Nevertheless, to prevent antibiotic resistance systemic treatment of pyuria, cloudy, and malodorous urine should be avoided. Symptoms suggestive for UTI and reported in 3%-70% of our patients include fever, new or increased in incontinence, increased spasticity, malaise, lethargy or sense of unease, discomfort or pain over the kidney or bladder, or autonomic dysreflexia [2].

In patients with NLUTD urine culture with antibiotic sensitivity testing is essential for clinically suspected UTI, as the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic resistance may differ from the general population. Empirical antibiotic treatment should be considered for severe symptoms, while non-antibiotic treatment may be an appropriate first-line in afebrile patients. However, it should be noted that UTIs rarely can present with negative culture. In case of otherwise unexplained persistent symptoms short term clinical follow-up and repetitive cultures might be needed, given the potential atypical presentation in patients with NLUTD. Prophylactic measures should be implemented to avoid recurrence, including education of healthcare professionals and patients about distinction between ABU and UTI. Optimal lower urinary tract management, treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity, proper catheter use, and appropriate catheter material selection are crucial in minimizing misdiagnosis of UTI [19].

Implications for research

The results prompt further inquiry into non-antibiotic options for acute UTI and prophylaxis in patients with NLUTD. Bladder irrigations or installations have repetitively shown potential in UTI prevention [28], however, well-structured trials confirming long-term efficacy and safety are missing. Available evidence for use of probiotics, phytotherapy, D-mannose, or immunostimulation (bacterial lysate of E. coli, e.g., UroVaxom®, OM Pharma SA, Geneva, Switzerland, or whole cell-inactivated bacteria, e.g., Uromune™, Inmunotek, Madrid, Spain) in patients with catheter-dependent bladder management is scarce.

Renewed interest in the use of bacteriophages, an accepted therapy in several Eastern European countries, could be a promising future treatment option [29, 30]. To further reduce antibiotic consumption, the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis for invasive diagnostics and minimal invasive treatments in presence of ABU should be explored [31].

Despite higher incidence of polymicrobial urine cultures in patients with indwelling catheters no difference in UTI frequency could be found. This raises the question about factors other than bacterial colonization and potential existence of a protective eubiotic bacterial colonization.

In our department, patients with an indwelling catheter are instructed to regularly clamp the catheter during the day. While clamping of indwelling catheters should be avoided for short-term catheterization (< 7 days) as it can increase urinary complications [32] benefits for long-term management are unclear. Although clamping may generally be preferred by patients [33], additional research is required to further investigate its effects and optimize catheter management strategies.


This cross-sectional study was conducted at a highly specialized tertiary academic center with rigorous antibiotic stewardship programs. The involvement of highly trained neuro-urologists and health professionals may limit generalizability to other settings. To avoid potential selection bias, we aimed to include all patients applicable for the study, however, 15% of patients could not be consented, mostly for medical reasons or incomplete datasets (e.g., missing urine culture). Additional visits for UTI related problems in a primary care facility can further not be ruled out. Recall bias may have affected the reported frequency of UTIs within the past 12 months, however, to avoid underestimation of incidence a less rigorous definition was used.

The patients included in this study represent a highly heterogeneous population with vastly different treatment regimens that may lead to a possible inherent skew regarding resistance patterns and rate of UTI episodes. Over 50% of our patients have a SCI as the underlying cause of neurogenic NLUTD.

An a priori power calculation was not performed and we acknowledge that a difference in UTI prevalence between the indwelling catheter and IC users is not excluded by the 95%-CI produced by our estimates. However, we collected data from a large sample, and we felt the similarity of outcomes was a good representation of the clinical reality.


In our patient population with NLUTD, we did not find relevant differences in UTI frequency for patients using an indwelling catheter compared to those performing IC, however, characteristics of microbiological findings were different between groups. While IC is the preferred management for patients with NLUTD who cannot effectively empty their bladders, as it is associated with fewer general complications, infectious outcomes seem to be similar with patients using an indwelling catheter. The microbiological characteristic further indicate that urine cultures are mandatory in case of UTIs prior antibiotic therapy in this population.

Availability of data and materials

Individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification will be available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal from the publication date until 5 years after article publication, to achieve aims in the approved proposal. Proposals should be directed to the corresponding author (LL) and the requested data will be sent if applicable.



Asymptomatic bacteriuria


Charlson comorbidity index


Colony forming units


Confidence intervals


Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute


European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing


Good Clinical Practice


Intermittent catheterization


International Conference on Harmonisation


Matrix-assisted laser desorption time-of-flight mass spectrometry


Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction


Spinal cord injury


Standard deviation


Urinary tract infection


  1. Panicker JN, Fowler CJ, Kessler TM. Lower urinary tract dysfunction in the neurological patient: clinical assessment and management. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(7):720–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Groen J, Pannek J, Castro Diaz D, Del Popolo G, Gross T, Hamid R, et al. Summary of European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on Neuro-Urology. Eur Urol. 2016;69(2):324–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, Gousse A, Kaufman MR, Keays E, et al. The AUA/SUFU Guideline on Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Diagnosis and Evaluation. J Urol. 2021;206(5):1097–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weld KJ, Dmochowski RR. Effect of bladder management on urological complications in spinal cord injured patients. J Urol. 2000;163(3):768–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonkat G, Bartoletti R, Bruyere F, Cai T, Geerlings SE, Köves B, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urological Infections. In: Office EG, editor.: EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands; 2020. p. 1–78.

  6. Tornic J, Wollner J, Leitner L, Mehnert U, Bachmann LM, Kessler TM. The Challenge of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria and Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections in Patients with Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction. J Urol. 2020;203(3):579–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pannek J, Wollner J. Management of urinary tract infections in patients with neurogenic bladder: challenges and solutions. Res Rep Urol. 2017;9:121–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sartori AM, Padilla-Fernandez B, t Hoen L, Blok BFM, Castro-Diaz DM, Del Popolo G, et al. Definitions of Urinary Tract Infection Used in Interventional Studies Involving Neurourological Patients-A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus. 2021.

  9. Palma-Zamora ID, Atiemo HO. Understanding the Economic Impact of Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2017;44(3):333–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Samal V, Paldus V, Fackova D, Mecl J. Multidrug-resistant bacteria in urine culture among patients with spinal cord injury and disorder: Time to first detection and analysis of risk factors. Spinal Cord. 2022;60(8):733–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goetz LL, Cardenas DD, Kennelly M, Bonne Lee BS, Linsenmeyer T, Moser C, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Urinary Tract Infection Basic Data Set. Spinal Cord. 2013;51(9):700–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD, Colgan R, Geerlings SE, Rice JC, et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(5):625–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Giske CG, Turnidge J, Canton R, Kahlmeter G, Committee ES. Update from the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). J Clin Microbiol. 2022;60(3):e0027621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nicolle LE, Gupta K, Bradley SF, Colgan R, DeMuri GP, Drekonja D, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria: 2019 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(10):e83–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lapides J, Diokno AC, Silber SJ, Lowe BS. Clean, intermittent self-catheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol. 1972;107(3):458–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Manack A, Motsko SP, Haag-Molkenteller C, Dmochowski RR, Goehring EL Jr, Nguyen-Khoa BA, et al. Epidemiology and healthcare utilization of neurogenic bladder patients in a US claims database. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(3):395–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guilcher SJ, Craven BC, Calzavara A, McColl MA, Jaglal SB. Is the emergency department an appropriate substitute for primary care for persons with traumatic spinal cord injury? Spinal Cord. 2013;51(3):202–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garcia-Arguello LY, O’Horo JC, Farrell A, Blakney R, Sohail MR, Evans CT, et al. Infections in the spinal cord-injured population: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2017;55(6):526–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prieto JA, Murphy CL, Stewart F, Fader M. Intermittent catheter techniques, strategies and designs for managing long-term bladder conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;10:CD006008.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berger A, Goldstine J, Hofstad C, Inglese GW, Kirschner-Hermanns R, MacLachlan S, et al. Incidence of urinary tract infection following initiation of intermittent catheterization among patients with recent spinal cord injury in Germany and the Netherlands. J Spinal Cord Med. 2022;45(3):461–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kinnear N, Barnett D, O’Callaghan M, Horsell K, Gani J, Hennessey D. The impact of catheter-based bladder drainage method on urinary tract infection risk in spinal cord injury and neurogenic bladder: A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(2):854–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roth JD, Pariser JJ, Stoffel JT, Lenherr SM, Myers JB, Welk B, et al. Patient subjective assessment of urinary tract infection frequency and severity is associated with bladder management method in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(8):700–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McGuire EJ, Savastano J. Comparative urological outcome in women with spinal cord injury. J Urol. 1986;135(4):730–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pannek J, Kurmann C, Krebs J, Habermacher V, Wollner J. Changes in Bacterial Spectrum and Resistance Patterns Over Time in the Urine of Patients with Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Due to Spinal Cord Injury. Urol Int. 2021;105(5–6):483–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barchitta M, Quattrocchi A, Maugeri A, La Rosa MC, La Mastra C, Sessa L, et al. Antibiotic Consumption and Resistance during a 3-Year Period in Sicily, Southern Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2253.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Echols RM, Tosiello RL, Haverstock DC, Tice AD. Demographic, clinical, and treatment parameters influencing the outcome of acute cystitis. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29(1):113–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skelton F, Grigoryan L, Holmes SA, Poon IO, Trautner B. Routine Urine Testing at the Spinal Cord Injury Annual Evaluation Leads to Unnecessary Antibiotic Use: A Pilot Study and Future Directions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(2):219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tradewell M, Pariser JJ, Nimeh T, Elliott SP, Neurogenic Bladder Research G. Systematic review and practice policy statements on urinary tract infection prevention in adults with spina bifida. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(Suppl 2):S205–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Leitner L, Kessler TM, Klumpp J. Bacteriophages: a Panacea in Neuro-Urology? Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(3):518–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leitner L, Ujmajuridze A, Chanishvili N, Goderdzishvili M, Chkonia I, Rigvava S, et al. Intravesical bacteriophages for treating urinary tract infections in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(3):427–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leitner L, Sammer U, Walter M, Knupfer SC, Schneider MP, Seifert B, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis may not be necessary in patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria undergoing intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections for neurogenic detrusor overactivity. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33197.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ma S, Gu J, Fan X. Need to clamp indwelling urinary catheters before removal after different durations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2023;13(2): e064075.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. van den Eijkel E, Griffiths P. Catheter valves for indwelling urinary catheters: a systematic review. Br J Community Nurs. 2006;1(3):11–2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank the Fondation Gaydoul, the Hochschulmedizin Zürich (Flagship grant: ImmunoPhage), the Swiss Continence Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant number: 189957) for financial support. The funding sources had not involvement in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or writing of the manuscript.


This trial was funded through Fondation Gaydoul, the Hochschulmedizin Zürich (Flagship grant: ImmunoPhage), the Swiss Continence Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant number: 189957).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Conception and design of study: NV, TMK, LL, Acquisition of data: BV, BJ, HS, LS, MK, OG, UM, TMK, LL, All authors had full access to all the data in the study, Analysis and/or interpretation of data: NV, FPS, TMK, LL, NV, FPS, LL: Verified the underlying data reported in the manuscript, Drafting the manuscript: NV, FPS, LL Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: BV, BJ, CEA, OC, HS, JM, LS, MK, OG, SM, UM, TMK, Obtained funding for this study: JM, SM, TMK, LL, All authors had access to the manuscript. All authors approved the version of the manuscript to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenz Leitner.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Cantonal Ethics Committee Zürich, Switzerland. All patients provided written informed consent, for the reuse of medical data for research purposes. This study was performed in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neumeier, V., Stangl, F.P., Borer, J. et al. Indwelling catheter vs intermittent catheterization: is there a difference in UTI susceptibility?. BMC Infect Dis 23, 507 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: