A Controlled Randomized Prospective Comparative Pilot Study to Evaluate the Ease of Use of a Transparent Chlorhexidine Gluconate Gel Dressing Versus A Chlorhexidine Gluconate Disk in Healthy Volunteers

Products and technologies that aid health care professionals in vascular access practice save staff time, and while promoting patient safety and prevention of infection can provide excellent opportunities for evaluations to support evidence- based practice. This was an industry sponsored, prospective, single site, controlled, randomized clinical evaluation pilot study of two catheter dressings, 3M™ Tegaderm™ Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) IV Securement Dressing (CHG gel dressing) (3M Health Care, St. Paul, MN) and BIOPATCH® Antimicrobial Dressing with Chlorhexidine Gluconate (BIOPATCH® Protective Disk with CHG, Johnson & Johnson, Somerville, NJ). Twelve intravascular (IV) therapy health care professionals (Clinicians) were asked for their professional evaluations of the catheter dressings: the ease of application and performance factors featured in specific questions. Catheters were secured on 12 healthy volunteers to simulate inserted jugular catheters (IJ) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) using StatLock® PICC Plus and 3M™ Steri-Strip™. Each clinician applied and removed one CHG gel dressing and one CHG disk on one simulated PICC and one simulated IJ site, according to the manufacturers' instructions.The clinicians concluded, based upon a 1 to 5 rating scale, that the CHG gel dressing is better in regard to ease of application, ease of applying correctly, ease of removal, ability to visualize the insertion site, ease of training another clinician to apply the dressing, and more intuitive application. Twelve out of 12 clinicians favored the CHG gel dressing over the CHG disk in overall performance.