Teleflex Highlights ARROWg+ard Blue PLUS® Antimicrobial Central Venous Catheter (CVC) Study, Which Shows Reduced Infections and Related Costs
Peer-Reviewed Published Study Shows Advantages of Chlorhexidine/Silver Sulfadiazine-Impregnated CVC vs. Uncoated CVC
The prospective study, by
The peer-reviewed paper appears as a featured article in the
The Lorente paper said the authors undertook the study because previous cost-effectiveness analyses of antimicrobial catheters included the cost of extended hospital stays. This cost varies widely from institution to institution, limiting the transferability of the results from institution to institution, they said.
For this new study, the authors included only the costs of CVCs, infection diagnosis, and antimicrobials used to treat patients who suffered infections. These direct expenses, they believed, gave a clearer picture of the ultimate cost-effectiveness of protected catheters, given those catheters’ somewhat higher initial cost.
“Our research shows that this antimicrobial catheter is cost-beneficial in jugular venous access. We believe that this catheter could be cost-beneficial especially when used at insertion sites that are associated with higher infection rates, such as jugular vein with tracheostomy or femoral vein, or with patients who have a higher risk of infection, such as immunocompromised patients,” said Dr. Lorente.
The study involved patients admitted to the ICU of the Hospital
Universitario de Canarias in Tenerife,
During the study, the ARROWg+ard Blue PLUS® CVC achieved zero infections. In contrast to the zero infections associated with ARROWg+ard Blue PLUS® CVCs, the unprotected catheters were associated with infections in 2% of cases and a CRBSI rate of 5.04/1,000 catheter days. The antimicrobial catheter was also associated with more prolonged CRBSI-free time than the unprotected catheter.
The cost per catheter day of the protected catheter was roughly half
that of the unprotected catheter (€3.78 ± €4.45 vs. €7.28 ± €16.71). The
differences in CRBSI rate, cost, and catheter-free time, as reported in
this study, are statistically significant. The cost was calculated in
euros because the study was done in
“The statistically significant finding that the ARROWg+ard Blue PLUS®
CVC was the most cost-effective option is very important,” said
As the authors pointed out, numerous government agencies and
professional societies have recommended protected catheters in their
guidelines for the prevention of CRBSIs. Among these organizations are
“This impressive study demonstrates both the clinical efficacy and
cost-effectiveness of chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine catheters,” said
“This study defined cost-effectiveness in very direct terms, but
hospitals should also consider the broader financial implications of
reducing CRBSIs,” said Kaye. “Patients are learning how to find the
safest hospitals, and they now have multiple places to look, from
hospital quality ratings by the
Dr. Kaye is a professor of medicine at
More than 30 studies support the ability of ARROWg+ard Technology to save lives and reduce costs by reducing infections. Additional information may be found at www.arrowgard.com.
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
1. Lorente L, Lecuona M, Jiménez A, et al. Chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-impregnated venous catheters save costs.
Treasurer and Vice President, Investor Relations