Good afternoon,
Is anyone using the antimicrobial silver IV/catheter dressing. This is a round disc, with direction to wet the disc with sterile saline then palce around the catheter with silver side down, cover with a transparent film dressing. I have not and do not use these patches however, collegues are.
Are any of you aware of aritcles/literature that support or do not support the use of silverlon on CVAD's.
Thank you,
Amy
I have never seen any studies on using silver for this purpose. That is why they are not listed in either the INS or CDC documents. It seems this wetting process can be complicated and easy to contaminate. Lynn
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, BC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com
Office Phone 770-358-7861
Amy,
I don't normally chime in on this forum as I am not a nurse and only use this forum as a way for me to learn clinically from the professionals like you and Lynn. It is a wonderful learning tool and want to thank all of you for the content. Just so you know upfront, I did use to rep the entire Silverlon line of products but have not worked for the company for 2.5 years. What I encourage is for you to find out for yourself since you guys stock the product. Proof is in the pudding. I suggest trying it on a few patients who might be contraindicated for a biopatch...especially if they have open sores and/or areas that are heavily infected. Silverlon even kills MRSA.
The Silverlon products have been used for many years at many hospitals all over the world. Particulary, it has been well received in burn centers and wound clinics in reducing surgical site infections and significantly decreasing infections in wound/burn/surgery patients. There are multiple studies/articles on the effectiveness of the Silverlon dressings to reduce infections and actually accelerate healing. Even the US military uses the Silverlon dressings for bomb/burn victims in the middle east and have done so for the last 10 years with astounding results. There have been numerous publications/articles/studies done for all their other dressings at reducing infections. Most IV Therapy/Vascular Access nurses do not know much about Silverlon since most of their applications in the past have been in the wound/burn/surgical area. However, the "disc" you are referring to is called Lifesaver and is available in 1" disc with different internal punch widths for adults/pediatrics aimed at reducing bacteria and overall CRBSIs. Over the years, hospitals that have used the Lifesaver and have seen a huge successes with it have requested a smaller 3/8" disc specifically for neonates where CHG caused too many complications with the neonate skin. Not only did the Lifesaver signficantly help reduce the overall NICU's BSI rates, but it did not burn the skin like CHG or cause any irritation to the neonates sensitive skin for 7-10 days. It can also be used on any patients with open sores, whether its a CVAD, Ports, Stomas. Because of the effectiveness at reducing bacteria as well as
In the adult arena, its also known to significantly kill bacteria evidenced by the use in Burn/Wound/Surgery centers with the most compromised patients. As stated there are multiple studies on the Silverlon. Their most recent study comes from Tampa General in Florida which details the hospitals decrease in overall CRBSI's using the Lifesaver. Previously they used Biopatch and compares the results. Tampa General fully converted over to the entire line of Silverlon dressings about 3 years ago and continue to have great success with the product.
I can certainly email you all the studies for you to review or you can check it out on their website a collection of studies for burn/wound/surgical/vascular access. If you want to email me your email address I can direct you to where you can find it or I can email to you. My email is [email protected].
BTW: It's been several years since they changed their DFU and now you can also use normal saline as the moisture agent to activate the ions.
Shawn H.
I would like to see any published clinical study using an silver dressing product around CVAD insertion sites showing the infection rates. I know there are published studies on silver products and that they are used in other settings. However, we will need studies on this specific use to make an evidence based decision about it. When the 2011 editions of INS standards and CDC guidelines were released, apparently there were no such studies because none were included in those documents. Eager to see any thing new. Thanks, Lynn
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, BC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com
Office Phone 770-358-7861
Hi Lynn.
I don't see any way to reply to you and attach files so I am going to start another subject regarding Silverlon and attach there. If you want to see their other studies in surgical/burns/wound areas, you can always go to their website. Silverlon dot com. Click the tab marked Clinical Studies.
Just a comment though. Although I can appreciate your desire to see studies specific to use of Silverlon with CVADS, I fail to understand why you wouldn't take into consideration the efficacy of the product in different settings, especially if there are excellent clinical studies with positive outcomes. I believe that other studies in other settings clearly would demonstrate the broad uses & effectiveness of the product at reducing/eliminating many type of bacteria in many of the areas where the overall goal is ALSO to reduce infections caused by bacteria.
The actual definition of a wound is: An injury to living tissue caused by a cut, blow, or other impact, typically one in which the skin is cut or broken. So knowing this, wouldn't the CVAD insertion site be considered a "wound" too? Or are you saying the CVAD insertion site is different than other much more infected sites? And if Silverlon is used in Wound/Burn/Surgical areas because of its effectiveness at killing bacteria AND minimizing infections and has the studies to back up the claim, why would it be any different for the CVAD patient and protecting the CVAD insertion site to bacteria? Mind you, most of the Wounds/Burns/some surgeries where Silverlon are highest risk areas for infections among patient populations. I would think that most of them are equally if not more at risk of infections than the typical CVAD patients. I am hoping in this instance the nurses read the clinical studies in other settings too and make their own conclusions on use for CVAD insertion sites since it's all addressing the ability to kill bacteria.
I'll attach 2 studies I think the vascular access/IV therapy nurses might find useful for PICCs/Centrals but please feel free to go to the website to get addtional studies with patients that are the most compromised with bacterial infections - burn/wound/surgical patients.
Thanks.
Shawn
A CVAD insertion site still contains the foreign object - the catheter - while a regular wound will not contain the object that caused it. The pathophysiology of infection with CVADs is attributed to the skin within the first week of insertion and to the hub after that. So we are talkling about use of these dressings only on short term CVADs. I know that no guidelines document will include a reference on infection from clinical sites other than a VAD - just a fact. Lynn
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, BC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com
Office Phone 770-358-7861