Peer-Reviewed, Published Research on Subclavian Insertion Site
Expands Previous Studies, Documenting Clinical and Financial Benefits of
Chlorhexidine/Silver Sulfadiazine-Impregnated CVC
WAYNE, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jul. 29, 2015--
Teleflex Incorporated (NYSE: TFX), a leading global provider of medical
devices for critical care and surgery, announced that newly published
research has further documented the ability of the Company’s ARROW®
Central Venous Catheter (CVC) with ARROWg+ard® Blue
Technology to reduce both catheter-related bloodstream infections
(CRBSIs) and direct costs associated with treating those
infections, even when the infection risk is already low.1
The peer‐reviewed retrospective study examined CVC usage in the
subclavian insertion site. That location has been shown to be associated
with lower overall infection risk, compared to the jugular and femoral
infection sites.2 The study appears online in the respected American
Journal of Infection Control, which is published by APIC,
the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
The antimicrobial catheter with ARROWg+ard® Blue
Technology outperformed an unprotected CVC in both infection reduction
and total cost per patient. Within the study, the protected catheter
achieved a zero infection rate of 0/1,000 catheter days. In contrast,
the unprotected device was associated with a higher CRBSI rate of
2.12/1,000 catheter days (1.4% of cases). The results were statistically
significant. The antimicrobial, protected catheter was also associated
with prolonged CRBSI-free time compared to the unprotected catheter,
including dwell times of up to 30 days without a bloodstream infection.
In addition to its superior clinical performance, the antimicrobial
catheter with ARROWg+ard® Blue Technology
had sharply lower CVC-related costs than those associated with the
unprotected catheter. The cost per catheter day of the protected
catheter was far lower than that of the unprotected catheter (€3.35 ±
3.75 vs €3.94 ± 9.95). This, too, was a statistically significant
result. The cost was calculated in euros because the study was done in
Spain.
The study focused only on CVCs inserted into the subclavian area, an
insertion site associated with a low risk of CRBSI. The researchers
compared infection rates and cost effectiveness of an unprotected CVC
versus a catheter protected with ARROWg+ard® Technology.
(ARROWg+ard® Technology is an antimicrobial
protection of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (CHSS) bonded to the
catheter’s surface to reduce CRBSIs.)
The study involved patients admitted to the ICU of the Hospital
Universitario de Canarias (Tenerife, Spain) who received one or more
subclavian venous catheters. It examined a total of 871 catheters and
6,040 catheter days.
The study was a retrospective analysis performed and published by
Leonardo Lorente, M.D., Ph.D. and colleagues, independent of Teleflex.
Dr. Lorente works in the Department of Critical Care at Hospital
Universitario de Canarias, in Tenerife, Spain.
The research goal was to determine if using a chlorhexidine/silver
sulfadiazine CVC was clinically and financially efficient, even when the
infection risk was low, given that the catheter has a somewhat higher
initial cost than an unprotected CVC. In two previous studies, the
authors determined that the use of CHSS-impregnated catheters
successfully reduced healthcare costs when CVCs were inserted in the
jugular and femoral veins ̶ sites associated with a high risk of CRBSI
and therefore higher overall treatment costs.3,4
For the current study, the authors included only the costs of CVCs,
infection diagnosis and antimicrobials used to treat patients who
developed infections. These direct expenses, they believed, provide a
clearer picture of whether savings produced by the protected catheter
offset its cost difference.
“Our research had previously established that the antimicrobial catheter
justified itself both clinically and in cost-effectiveness when inserted
in sites associated with higher CRBSI rates,” said Lorente. “Would the
same thing be true if the catheter was used in sites with a low risk of
infection? The answer is ‘yes’ according to our data, making the
protected catheter a prudent choice in many circumstances ̶ especially
for hospitals that have an above-benchmark rate of CRBSIs.”
Lorente said the study results should be broadly useful in a variety of
hospital settings. “When a hospital is trying to reduce its CRBSIs, our
research shows that adopting an antimicrobial catheter can make an
immediate, cost-effective impact. That is true even when hospital policy
already dictates using the lowest risk insertion sites.”
“This study, when combined with the two earlier independent studies by
the same team, shows that using an ARROW® CVC with
antimicrobial protection from Teleflex makes sense from many
perspectives,” said Jay White, President of the Teleflex Vascular Access
Division. “This study is further evidence that using an unprotected
catheter may put both patients and a hospital’s bottom line at
unnecessary risk. The ARROW® CVC with ARROWg+ard®
Technology has been repeatedly shown to improve patient safety even when
the risk of infection is low, and it more than pays for itself in the
process.”
More than 30 studies support the ability of ARROWg+ard®
Technology to save lives and reduce costs by reducing infections.
Additional information on the technology can be found at arrowgard.com
and thearrowadvantage.com.
The authors and institution have no financial connection to Teleflex
Incorporated. This study was conducted independent from Teleflex
Incorporated.
About Teleflex Incorporated
Teleflex is a leading global provider of specialty medical devices for a
range of procedures in critical care and surgery. Our mission is to
provide solutions that enable healthcare providers to improve outcomes
and enhance patient and provider safety. Headquartered in Wayne, PA,
Teleflex employs approximately 12,200 people and serves healthcare
providers worldwide. For additional information about Teleflex please
refer to www.teleflex.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
Any statements contained in this press release that do not describe
historical facts may constitute forward-looking statements. Any
forward-looking statements contained herein are based on our
management's current beliefs and expectations, but are subject to a
number of risks, uncertainties and changes in circumstances, which may
cause actual results or company actions to differ materially from what
is expressed or implied by these statements. These risks and
uncertainties are identified and described in more detail in our filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report
on Form 10-K.
Teleflex, Arrow, and Arrowg+ard are
trademarks or registered trademarks of Teleflex Incorporated or its
affiliates. © 2015 Teleflex Incorporated. All rights reserved.
MC-001315
References:
1. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, et al. Efficiency of
chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated venous catheters at
subclavian sites. American Journal of Infection Control, 2015.
2. Lorente L, Henry C, Martin MMN, et al. Central venous
catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of
2,595 catheters. Crit Care, 2005; 9: R631-R635.
3. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, et al. Chlorhexidine-silver
sulfadiazine-impregnated venous catheters save costs. American
Journal of Infection Control, 2014; 42: 321-324.
4. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, et al. Cost/benefit analysis of
chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated venous catheters for
femoral access. American Journal of Infection Control, 2014; 42:
1130-1132.
View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150729005001/en/
Source: Teleflex Incorporated
Teleflex Incorporated
Jake Elguicze
Treasurer and Vice
President, Investor Relations
610-948-2836
jake.elguicze@teleflex.com
www.teleflex.com