Peer-Reviewed, Published Research on Subclavian
Insertion Site Expands Previous Studies, Documenting Clinical and
Financial Benefits of Chlorhexidine/Silver Sulfadiazine-Impregnated
CVC
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/
Teleflex IncorporatedJake ElguiczeTreasurer and Vice President,
Investor
Relations610-948-2836jake.elguicze@teleflex.comwww.teleflex.com
Teleflex (NYSE:TFX)
Historical Stock Chart
From Feb 2024 to Mar 2024
Teleflex (NYSE:TFX)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2023 to Mar 2024