Would like to know if any one can comment on advantages vs disadvantages comparing these two products.  Has any one gone from Biopatch to 3M.  If you did, please let me know how the transition went and if there were any advantages or disadvantages with this move.

Thanks, Chris Thomas

Gwen, We do not use the

Gwen,

We do not use the Tegaderm CHG dressing on accessed implanted ports. The wings on the needle cover the majority of surrounding skin preventing your goal of a 360 degree zone of inhibition (why not advancing a PICC to tamponade is advised). I would still use an antimicrobial patch when accessing the port depending on desired needle dwell time.

Hope this helps.

Timothy L. Creamer, RN

PICC Team Leader, Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point

Clinical Educator, Bard Access Systems

Timothy L. Creamer, RN

Clinical Specialist, Bard Access Systems

Timothy, What results do you

Timothy,

What results do you have on implanted ports?  Do you use this dressing on top of the access device?  What is its efficacy on ports?

Gwen Irwin

Austin, Texas

We switched from the Algidex

We switched from the Algidex patch (silver ions) to the Tegaderm CHG about 6 months ago. Biopatch was replaced 3-4 years prior. We place between 90-150 PICC's/month and place the Tegaderm CHG dressing upon insertion unless bleeding is an issue. We no longer perform next day dressing changes unless gauze is utilized for an oozing site. The CHG impregnated gel pad has some medium absorbency, key to assessing is how to differentiate between the gel pad acheiving saturation or not. If palpable fingertip pressure results in retaining indentation then the pad is saturated and requires a dressing change. I see this more with diaphoretic or weeping skin than with blood. Curious regarding bleed thru mentioned on a response, was it small, was it contained within the dressing or not, was it probably the same amount the Biopatch absorbed? After applying the Tegaderm CHG dressing, if the site has some initial oozing of blood I will apply a light pressure dressing being careful to avoid adhesive to the Tegaderm so reassessment and/or removal is possible without impairing dressing integrity. We utilize the Tegaderm CHG on our other central lines as well. Some facilities are trialing the Tegaderm CHG as a PICC securement device (deleting the statlock device) but I have not heard of any outcomes.

We have been pleased with this product, have not seen increased skin tears or erythema. The rep should review all the tips/tricks like removal, no skin prep or barrier under the gel pad, leaving adequate external catheter for maximum zone of inhibition, etc...

Advantages are you can visualize the insertion site and dressing/patch one product (passive compliance). Disadvantages are improper removal can potentially dislodge catheter partially and impair skin integrity.

Disclaimer, I am NOT associated with 3M, Johnson & Johnson, or Deroyal.

Hope this helps with your decision.

Timothy L. Creamer, RN

PICC Team Leader, Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point

Clinical Educator, Bard Access Systems

Timothy L. Creamer, RN

Clinical Specialist, Bard Access Systems

We are a small community

We are a small community hospital and may do 5 or so pICCs a week.  We made the switch and started seeing bleed-thru on the tegaderm impregnated dsg, went back to the patch.

Celia Brown