Newest Vascular Access Technology
Life-Threatening Complications Consistently Challenge Vascular Access. We Can't Keep Using the Same Materials and Expecting Better Outcomes.
Thrombosis
Blood platelets react to the catheter material, forming blood clots that impede catheter flow and can lead to serious conditions like deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism with DVT rates of up to 7%.1,2,3
Infection
Bacteria are introduced during catheter insertion or accumulate in thrombosed sections of the catheter wall, leading to bloodstream infections with 0.3% CLABSI per catheter day in clinical data.4, 5
Phlebitis
Catheters can damage the vein wall during insertion, leading to swelling and pain with up to 35% incidence in peripheral catheters.6
MIMIX™ technology in action
*Data on file at Access Vascular. Reduction of thrombus accumulation was evaluated using in vitro and in vivo models. Pre-clinical in vitro/in vivo evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.
HydroMID® STUDY ANALYSIS*
In a retrospective clinical study of 205 patients, the HydroMID® showed a statistically significant reduction in failure rates and 6X fewer complications than standard polyurethane.
The HydroMID catheters demonstrated no DVTs versus 7% DVTs with the standard polyurethane catheters.
Taking into account all of the complication costs, the polyurethane catheters incurred an estimated $175,000+ in additional costs for complications with 7 DVTs and 22 device replacements versus the HydroMID devices.**
*Bunch, J. (2022). A Retrospective Assessment of Peripheral Catheter Failures Focusing on Catheter Composition. Journal of Infusion Nursing.
**Cost data on file at Access Vascular Inc.
RETROSPECTIVE HydroPICC® STUDY DETAILS**
In a retrospective clinical study of 121 patients, the HydroPICC demonstrated no occlusions or replacements compared to 13 occlusions and 8 replacements with the standard polyurethane catheter.
Using HydroPICC resulted in a potential savings of up to 50% in additional material costs versus the standard polyurethane catheter highlighting the potential for time and cost savings with this device.
**Bunch, J. (2023). A retrospective, comparative, clinical study of occlusion rate of peripherally inserted central catheters fabricated of poly(vinyl alcohol)-based hydrogel composite. Journal of Materials Science: Materials Science in Medicine (2023) 34:34.
READ OUR WHITEPAPER
In Vitro and In Vivo Assessments of Novel Catheter Material*
An average of 97% less thrombus accumulation on its surface (based on platelet count)* compared to a standard polyurethane catheter.
Testing includes an FDA-recognized blood flow loop test conducted by Thrombodyne Inc and placement of HydroPICC® devices in ovine models for 14 or 28 days.
*No correlation between in vitro/in vivo testing methods and clinical outcomes have currently been ascertained.
Trackability Comparison
Three 4 Fr PICC devices that were evaluated in the in vitro trackability and pushability test.
HydroPICC® reduced the average tracking force vs a standard polyurethane catheter by 84%.
HydroPICC reduced the average tracking force vs a thromboresistant polyurethane catheter by 90%.
Spyropoulos AC. Investigational treatments of venous thromboembolism. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2007 Apr;16(4):431-40.
Burns KE, et al. Catheter-related right atrial thrombus. Can Respir J. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):163-5.
Bahl A, et al. (2019) Clin Appl Thromb Hemost.
Maki DG, et al. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Sep;81(9):1159-71.
Chopra V, et al. Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence. Am J Med. 2012 Aug;125(8):733-41.
Lee S. e al. (2019) Int J Environ Res Public Health;16(18):3412.
Are you interested in learning more about our products?
