BIOPATCH® Protective Disk with CHG
Protect All Lines. Protect All Lives.™
50 patients die each day in US hospitals due to bloodstream infections.1,2
Catheter-related bloodstream infections are preventable, often fatal and can significantly impact hospital CMS reimbursement.
Proven to reduce CRBSI
BIOPATCH® reduces central venous and arterial catheter related BSIs.
BIOPATCH® is supported by over a dozen randomized-controlled trials – including all five studies cited in the 2011 CDC guidelines supporting its Category 1B recommendation for use of CHG sponge dressing.
Prepping the skin is not enough5
Biopatch provides 360º protection around the insertion site up to 7 days.5
Within hours of thorough antiseptic application, resident bacteria quickly re-colonize the skin surface.5 Patients need to be protected from their own skin’s microflora for ongoing antisepsis between dressing changes6 regardless of the type of vascular access device used.6
Improve the patient experience
Take the first step toward clinically indicated replacement
Peripheral IVs are the most frequently used invasive device in hospitals,7 and standards of care now recommend clinically indicated replacement. This change can lead to improved outcomes, increased efficiency, and better patient experience. "There is no risk-free line, and vigilance is required with any vascular device placement.”8
1. http://www.cdc.gov/hai/surveillance/. Accessed 07-25-16.
2. Soufir L, Timsit JF, Mahe C, Carlet J, Regnier B, Chevret S. Attributable morbidity and mortality of catheter- related septicemia in critically ill patients: a matched, risk-adjusted, cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:396-401
3. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81:1159-1171.
4.http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heic/docs/CLABSI_prevention.pdf. Accessed 07-25-16.
5. Shapiro JM, Bond EL, Garman JK. Use of a chlorhexidine dressing to reduce microbial colonization of epidural catheters. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:625-631
6. Hendley JO, Ashe KM. Eff ect of topical antimicrobial treatment on aerobic bacteria in the stratum corneum of human skin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. April 1991;35(4):627-631
7. Zingg W, Pittet D. Peripheral venous catheters: an under-evaluated problem. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009;34:S38–42.
8. Kovacs, CS, Fatica, C. Hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus primary bloodstream infection: A comparison of events that do and do not meet the central line-associated bloodstream infection definition. American Journal of Infection Control. 2016. http://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(16)30184-5/fulltext. Published online 5-5-16
9. Bhende MS, Rothenburger S. In vitro antimicrobial effectivene4ss of 5 catheter insertion-site dressings. The Journal of the Association for Vascular Access. 2007;12(4):227-231.
10. Maki DG, Chiacchierini RP, Hua S, Genthner D. An evaluation of BIOPATCH® Antimicrobial Dressing compared to routine standard of care in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. 2000.
11. Timsit J. et al. Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponges and Less Frequent Dressing Changes for Prevention of Catheter-Related Infections in Critically Ill Adults. JAMA. 2009; 301:1231-1241.