Need for Routine Preoperative Insertion of Indwelling Urinary Catheter Prior to Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Background: Evaluate outcomes following urinary catheter (UC) versus no urinary catheter (NUC) insertion in elective endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Methods: Retrospective record review of all elective EVAR at a university affiliated medical center over a 5-year period. Statistical analysis included Chi Sq, Independent Student t Test. Results: Six surgeons performed 272 elective EVAR. Three surgeons preferred selective insertion of indwelling UC, such that 86 (32%) EVAR were completed without indwelling urinary catheters (NUC). Differences between NUC versus UC included; male: (86% vs. 70%; P = 0.004), CAD: (45% vs. 33%; p = 0.046), conscious sedation: (36% vs. 8%; P < 0.001), bilateral percutaneous EVAR (PEVAR): (100% vs. 90%; P = 0.01), within Proglide (TM) IFU guidelines (87% vs 75%; P =.05), major adverse operative event (MAOE): (3.5% vs. 10%; P = 0.05) and mean operative time (185 +/- 73 vs. 140 +/- 37; P < 0.001). Intra-operative catheterization was never required among NUC. Postoperative adverse urinary events (AUE) were more common among UC (11.4% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.41); with longer times to straight catheterization/reinsertion (1575 +/- 987 vs, 522 +/- 269 min; P= 0.015) andlowerlikelihoodof eligibilityforsamedaydischarge (SDD); (41% vs. 59%; P = 0.008). Ineligibility for SDD was due to AUE in 18% of UC patients. Conclusion: Selective preoperative UC insertion should be considered for EVAR, with particular consideration to no preoperative catheterization in men meeting Proglide IFU. Adverse urinary events occurred less frequently among NUC and were identified/treated earlier. Moreover, AUEs were the most common reason for potential SDD ineligibility among UC patients. Selective policies may facilitate SDD.