Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressing for Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Insertion Sites: A NICE Medical Technology GuidanceReport as inadecuate




Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressing for Central Venous and Arterial Catheter Insertion Sites: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 135–149

First Online: 12 October 2015DOI: 10.1007-s40258-015-0202-5

Cite this article as: Jenks, M., Craig, J., Green, W. et al. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2016 14: 135. doi:10.1007-s40258-015-0202-5

Abstract

Catheters are widely used for vascular access and for the administration of drugs or fluids in critically ill patients. This exposes patients to an infection risk. Tegaderm chlorhexidine gluconate CHG developed by 3M—a transparent securement dressing—covers and protects catheter sites and secures devices to the skin. It comprises a transparent adhesive dressing to act as a barrier against external contamination and an integrated gel pad containing an antiseptic agent. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee MTAC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE selected Tegaderm CHG for evaluation. One study was identified by the sponsor as relevant to the decision problem. From this, the sponsor concluded that compared with standard dressings, Tegaderm CHG is associated with lower rates of catheter-related infection, but increased dermatitis incidence. The External Assessment Centre EAC identified four paired comparative studies between Tegaderm CHG, other CHG dressings or standard dressings. The EAC agreed with the sponsor’s conclusion, finding that CHG dressings reduce infections compared with standard dressings. The sponsor constructed a de novo costing model. Tegaderm CHG generated cost savings of £77.26 per patient compared with standard dressings and was cost saving in 98.5 % of a sample of sets of inputs 2013 prices. The EAC critiqued and updated the model’s inputs, yielding similar results to those the sponsor estimate. The MTAC reviewed the evidence and decided to support the case for adoption, issuing a positive draft recommendation. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 25.

Download fulltext PDF



Author: Michelle Jenks - Joyce Craig - William Green - Neil Hewitt - Mick Arber - Andrew Sims

Source: https://link.springer.com/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents