Teleflex Catheter Guard Technology Shown to Reduce Infections, Lower Costs

January 13, 2015—Teleflex Incorporated announced that newly published research reaffirms the ability of central venous catheters (CVCs) protected with the company’s Arrowg+ard technology to reduce both bloodstream infections and direct costs associated with treating those infections. Arrowg+ard technology is an antimicrobial protection of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine bonded to the catheter’s surface to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs).

The findings from this retrospective analysis were published by Leonardo Lorente, MD, et al in the American Journal of Infection Control (2014;42:1130–1132).

The study of the Arrow CVC with Arrowg+ard technology was composed of patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit at the Hospital Universitario de Canarias in Tenerife, Spain, who received one or more femoral venous catheters. The study examined a total of 254 catheters and 2,195 catheter days. Each patient’s physician made the decision about whether to use a protected or unprotected catheter and whether to insert the catheter in the femoral vein.

Focusing only on CVCs inserted into the femoral area, the investigators compared the infection rates and cost effectiveness of an unprotected CVC versus a catheter protected with Arrowg+ard technology when inserted into this infection-prone region. The study sought to determine whether the Teleflex Arrow CVC with Arrowg+ard technology could reduce bloodstream infection rates and reduce the cost of diagnosing and treating an infection.

The group receiving protection with the Arrow CVC outperformed the unprotected CVC group in terms of both infection reduction and total cost per patient. Within the study, the protected catheter achieved a zero infection rate per 1,000 catheter days. In contrast, the unprotected device was associated with a much higher CRBSI rate of 8.61/1,000 catheter days (7.4% of cases). The results were statistically significant, advised Teleflex. The antimicrobial-protected catheter was also associated with prolonged CRBSI-free time compared to the unprotected catheter, including dwell times of up to 25 days without a bloodstream infection.

The study investigators noted that previous cost-effectiveness analyses of antimicrobial catheters included the cost of extended hospital stays, but this cost varies widely from institution to institution and country to country, limiting the applicability of the results.

The current study included only the costs of CVCs, infection diagnosis, and antimicrobials used to treat patients who developed infections. These direct expenses provide a clearer picture of the ultimate cost effectiveness of the protected, antimicrobial catheter, given its somewhat higher initial cost, stated the investigators.

The investigators reported that the Arrow CVC with Arrowg+ard technology had sharply lower CVC-related costs than those associated with the unprotected catheter. Notably, the cost of an Arrow CVC with Arrowg+ard was 15 times less expensive than an unprotected catheter. The cost per catheter day of the protected catheter was €2.92 ± €1.77 versus the cost of an unprotected catheter at €18.22 ± €53.13. Because the study was conducted in Spain, the cost was reported in euros. The company estimated that the conversion to dollars would equal $3.48 ± $2.11 versus $21.70 ± $63.27.

Dr. Lorente, who is with the Department of Critical Care at Hospital Universitario de Canarias, commented in the company’s press release, “We report that the antimicrobial catheter eliminated infections even though it was used in the femoral access site, which is typically associated with higher infection rates. This suggests the device might be similarly effective when used in other sites with high infection risk or with vulnerable patient populations, such as immunocompromised patients.”

He added, “These findings may interest hospitals who are evaluating antimicrobial catheters to reduce their bloodstream infection rates. The fact that the antimicrobial catheter was shown to be cost effective should also reassure those institutions about the economics of antimicrobial CVCs.”