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

Michelle Jenks (), Joyce Craig, William Green, Neil Hewitt, Mick Arber and Andrew Sims
Additional contact information
Michelle Jenks: University of York
Joyce Craig: University of York
William Green: University of York
Neil Hewitt: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Mick Arber: University of York
Andrew Sims: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2016, vol. 14, issue 2, No 3, 135-149

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-015-0202-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-015-0202-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-015-0202-5

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().