Evaluating dressings

Surgical site infections SSI occur in 1. In order to analyze cost-effectiveness of the selected dressings in the group of patients who developed SSI, the costs of ambulatory visits, additional hospitalization, nursing care, and systemic antibiotic therapy were assessed.

Evaluating dressings

This was based on four RCTs, all rated at low risk of bias. One of the studies10 was stopped early due to observed benefit of the C-I sponge dressing. Two of the large RCTs11,12 enrolled patients receiving central venous and arterial catheters to achieve adequate study power.

Top of Page 4. This was based on four RCTs, rated at moderate9 and low8,11,12 risk of bias, that compared C-I gel dressings with highly adhesive and standard dressings,11 or C-I sponge dressings with standard dressings Appendix Table 4. The two larger studies found a reduction in CRI when using C-I gel dressings compared with highly adhesive or standard dressings,11 and when using C-I sponge dressings compared with standard dressings.

One of these studies11 conducted subanalyses by catheter type and found a significant reduction in CRI rates among patients with CVCs, but not among patients with arterial catheters. Two smaller studies with lower study power found no difference in the incidence of CRI by dressing type8,9 Appendix Table 6.

All studies were rated at low risk of bias. Definitions of contact dermatitis varied by study, but all addressed reactions near the catheter insertion site Appendix Table 6.

Two large studies assessed adverse events using a standard rating system11,12 and found that use of either C-I sponge dressings or C-I gel dressings was associated with significantly higher rates of severe contact dermatitis requiring dressing removal or local redness as compared with standard dressings.

Two studies found no product-related adverse events. Both studies were rated at low risk of bias. These studies were not directly comparable because standard methods to measure bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine are not available and each study used different methods to measure resistance.

During this interval, the chlorhexidine concentration and the materials and properties of these C-I dressings may have changed. Three8,10,12 of the five evaluated studies did not use insertion site skin antisepsis methods such as alcoholic chlorhexidine recommended for CVCs by the Guidelines.

One of these studies11 found that use of C-I dressings significantly reduced intravascular catheter-related infections as compared with standard dressings, and the other, possibly underpowered study9 found no difference.

Whether the benefits of C-I dressings over standard dressings would be observed or achieve the same magnitude if skin antisepsis with alcoholic chlorhexidine were used for all patients is unclear.

None of the studies evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine skin antisepsis in combination with C-I dressings on systemic reactions to chlorhexidine. There are increased reports of anaphylactic reactions to chlorhexidine skin preparations These reports raise questions about how C-I dressings may impact the effect of chlorhexidine skin preparation on anaphylactic reactions.

Due to this uncertainty, surveillance should continue to monitor any possible association between use of C-I dressings and chlorhexidine skin antisepsis to determine if there is an increasing association with anaphylactic reactions.

Advise patients to seek immediate medical attention if they experience any symptoms of an allergic reaction when using the products.- A Pocket Guide Developed by • Professor Finn Gottrup, Denmark • Dr. Robert Kirsner, US The pocket guide information is intended as a general of using a holistic approach to evaluate and remove all barriers to healing, so .

Mar 06,  · Reductions in rates of CRBSI were found in three RCTs evaluating C-I sponge dressings 8,10,12 and one RCT evaluating C-I gel dressings. 11 The three larger trials compared C-I gel dressings with highly adhesive or standard dressings, 11 and C-I sponge dressings with standard dressings 10,12 (Appendix Table 4).

The clinical evaluation of hydrogel in the author’s facility included five types of traumatic and iatrogenic wound care challenges commonly encountered in clinical burn care: dressings for skin graft donor sites and acute partial-thickness burns as well as temporary dressings for excised full-thickness wounds, meshed autografts, and .

Evaluating dressings

Nov 12,  · Current trends in wound care research move toward the development of wound healing dressings designed to treat different types of wounds (e.g., burns and chronic wounds) and toward tailoring treatments for different stages of the wound healing process.

Aug 01,  · Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) occur in %–% of women undergoing cesarean section (CS) and lead to greater morbidity rates and increased treatment costs.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC) impregnated dressings to prevent SSI in women subject to CS. The purpose of these evaluation forms for Tegaderm™ transparent dressings is to assist your customer in the development of a tool to evaluate our dressing compared to their current or a competitive dressing for I.V.

and/or wound care.

Salad Dressing Recipes - alphabetnyc.com