IV3000^◊

REACTIC Film and MVTR

The unique REACTIC film used to make IV3000 has a molecular structure which is significantly more permeable to water vapour than ordinary films. This prevents the accumulation of moisture underneath the dressing, reducing bacterial growth and the risk of catheter-related infection.

“ A warm moist environment, conducive to a high microbial bioburden, [may] increase the risk of infection”¹
A Jones, 2004

Catheter-related infections are a serious barrier to healing, keeping patients in hospital longer and increasing the cost of care.

Exceeding ideal IV site clinical guidance

References

1. Jones A. Dressings for the Management of Catheter Sites. JAVA 2004; 9: 26–33.
2. Pratt RJ et al. epic2: National Evidence-based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections in NHS Hospitals in England. J Hosp Inf 2007; 65S: S1–S64.
3. Richardson, MC (1991) An in-vivo assessment of microbial proliferation under transparent film dressings. In Maki, DG, Ed., International Congress and symposium Series
No 179, ‘Improving catheter site care’. Royal Society of Medicine Series, London, New York, 29–33.
4. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R3a. (in-vitro)
5. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R1a. (in-vitro)
6. Smith and Nephew 2011 Laboratory Report DS/11/027/R1. (in-vitro)
7. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R4a. (in-vitro)
8. Treston-Aurand, J et al. Impact of Dressing Materials on Central Venous Catheter Infection Rates. J Intraven Nurs 1997; 20: 201–6.
9. Smith & Nephew Data On File Report – 0505005. (in-vitro)
10. Statement reference 200409902-01 Bacterial Viral Barrier claim for IV 3000 Transparent Dressing Family.
11. Campbell H, Carrington M. Peripheral IV cannula dressings: advantages and disadvantages. Br J Nurs. 1999; 8: 1420–2, 1424–7.
12. Tripepi-Bova KA, Woods KD, Loach MC. A comparison of transparent polyurethane and dry gauze dressings for peripheral i.v. catheter sites: rates of phlebitis, infiltration,
and dislodgment by patients. Am J Crit Care. 1997; 6: 377–81.
13. Department of Health (2007). Saving Lives: reducing infection, delivering clean and safe care. High Impact Intervention No: 1 Central Venous Catheter Care Bundle.
14. Department of Health (2003). Winning Ways – Guidelines for working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England – report from the Chief Medical Officer.
15. RCN Standards for infusion therapy, third edition, January 2010.
16. Walton G. Safety statement, January 2011.
17. Wheeler S et al. A prospective, randomised, three-way clinical comparison of a novel, highly permeable, polyurethane dressing with 206 Swan-Ganz pulmonary artery
catheters: OPSITE IV3000 vs. Tegaderm vs. gauze and tape. II. Nursing issues: effectiveness and tolerance as catheter dressings. In: Maki, DG, ed, International Congress
and Symposia Series No. 179, ‘Improving Catheter Site Care’, Royal Society of Medicine Series, London, New York, 1991, 67–72. (in-vitro)
18. Neufeld, M. A randomised control trial of effectiveness of OPSITE Wound vs. IV3000 in maintaining an occlusive central line dressing. McMaster University, Canada 1991. (in-vitro)
19. Besley, M. OPSITE IV3000: Potential for improved quality of life for haemodialysis patients with permanent central venous catheters in Maki, D G ed. International Congress
and Symposium Series No 179 Improving Catheter Site Care, Royal Society of Medical Services Ltd, London. New York, 1991 57–59. (in-vitro)
20. Smith & Nephew 2007 ACTICOAT Site Dressing: A summary of absorbent capacity, antimicrobial and silver release properties. (in-vitro)
21. Smith & Nephew Data On File Report – 0305006. (in-vitro)
22. Smith & Nephew 2004 Laboratory Report – DS/04/096/R1. (in-vitro)
23. Smith & * Results from in-vitro testing Nephew Data On File Report – WRPTSG002-06-01ii. (in-vitro)

Choosing the right dressing

Smith & Nephew has a range of dressings for every kind of IV site, choosing the right dressing is key for a better product performance:

>>>>>Veins Map <<<

The IV3000 Dressing Range

Ported Dressings

Brief Desciption Here

Non-Ported Dressings

Brief Desciption Here

Window Frame Delivery

Brief Desciption Here

Incise Drapes

Brief Desciption Here

IV3000  introduces the IMPROVED IV3000 ported IV dressings…

Stronger + More visible = Better Fixation

>>>>>>>> Animation Here <<<<<<<<

<<<<I want an IV Dressing, Nurse Image >>>>

For Smith & Nephew the success and continual improvement of our products depends on the input of the healthcare professionals who use them every day.

Giving more to you and your patients

For you

• Ward educational packages and animated tools to make application training straight forward
• Support from clinical specialists to answer complex questions on IV site care
• Visual infusion phlebitis scoring tools to help you spot inflamed blood vessels before they become a problem

For them

• IV3000 dressings are waterproof so patients needn’t remove them every time they want a shower⁵
• Our low allergy, non-irritating adhesive is easy to remove, allowing greater patient comfort^16,17
• Long-lasting dressings mean fewer uncomfortable dressing changes¹⁸

References

1. Jones A. Dressings for the Management of Catheter Sites. JAVA 2004; 9: 26–33.
2. Pratt RJ et al. epic2: National Evidence-based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections in NHS Hospitals in England. J Hosp Inf 2007; 65S: S1–S64.
3. Richardson, MC (1991) An in-vivo assessment of microbial proliferation under transparent film dressings. In Maki, DG, Ed., International Congress and symposium Series
No 179, ‘Improving catheter site care’. Royal Society of Medicine Series, London, New York, 29–33.
4. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R3a. (in-vitro)
5. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R1a. (in-vitro)
6. Smith and Nephew 2011 Laboratory Report DS/11/027/R1. (in-vitro)
7. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R4a. (in-vitro)
8. Treston-Aurand, J et al. Impact of Dressing Materials on Central Venous Catheter Infection Rates. J Intraven Nurs 1997; 20: 201–6.
9. Smith & Nephew Data On File Report – 0505005. (in-vitro)
10. Statement reference 200409902-01 Bacterial Viral Barrier claim for IV 3000 Transparent Dressing Family.
11. Campbell H, Carrington M. Peripheral IV cannula dressings: advantages and disadvantages. Br J Nurs. 1999; 8: 1420–2, 1424–7.
12. Tripepi-Bova KA, Woods KD, Loach MC. A comparison of transparent polyurethane and dry gauze dressings for peripheral i.v. catheter sites: rates of phlebitis, infiltration,
and dislodgment by patients. Am J Crit Care. 1997; 6: 377–81.
13. Department of Health (2007). Saving Lives: reducing infection, delivering clean and safe care. High Impact Intervention No: 1 Central Venous Catheter Care Bundle.
14. Department of Health (2003). Winning Ways – Guidelines for working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England – report from the Chief Medical Officer.
15. RCN Standards for infusion therapy, third edition, January 2010.
16. Walton G. Safety statement, January 2011.
17. Wheeler S et al. A prospective, randomised, three-way clinical comparison of a novel, highly permeable, polyurethane dressing with 206 Swan-Ganz pulmonary artery
catheters: OPSITE IV3000 vs. Tegaderm vs. gauze and tape. II. Nursing issues: effectiveness and tolerance as catheter dressings. In: Maki, DG, ed, International Congress
and Symposia Series No. 179, ‘Improving Catheter Site Care’, Royal Society of Medicine Series, London, New York, 1991, 67–72. (in-vitro)
18. Neufeld, M. A randomised control trial of effectiveness of OPSITE Wound vs. IV3000 in maintaining an occlusive central line dressing. McMaster University, Canada 1991. (in-vitro)
19. Besley, M. OPSITE IV3000: Potential for improved quality of life for haemodialysis patients with permanent central venous catheters in Maki, D G ed. International Congress
and Symposium Series No 179 Improving Catheter Site Care, Royal Society of Medical Services Ltd, London. New York, 1991 57–59. (in-vitro)
20. Smith & Nephew 2007 ACTICOAT Site Dressing: A summary of absorbent capacity, antimicrobial and silver release properties. (in-vitro)
21. Smith & Nephew Data On File Report – 0305006. (in-vitro)
22. Smith & Nephew 2004 Laboratory Report – DS/04/096/R1. (in-vitro)
23. Smith & * Results from in-vitro testing Nephew Data On File Report – WRPTSG002-06-01ii. (in-vitro)

An IV-site dressing that protects your budget too

Catheter-related bloodstream infections cost around £6000 per infection to treat.¹³

Reducing bacterial propagation near the IV site is one way of reducing this risk.⁸ Another way is to limit exposure of the IV site to the surrounding environment.

IV3000 dressings can be kept in place for up to seven days, meaning fewer dressing changes and less chance of bacterial infection¹⁹ 

This also:

• creates less need for dressing changes, reducing nursing time
• minimises potential for catheter dislodgement, which can help avoid the extra expense of recannulating a patient

References

1. Jones A. Dressings for the Management of Catheter Sites. JAVA 2004; 9: 26–33.
2. Pratt RJ et al. epic2: National Evidence-based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections in NHS Hospitals in England. J Hosp Inf 2007; 65S: S1–S64.
3. Richardson, MC (1991) An in-vivo assessment of microbial proliferation under transparent film dressings. In Maki, DG, Ed., International Congress and symposium Series
No 179, ‘Improving catheter site care’. Royal Society of Medicine Series, London, New York, 29–33.
4. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R3a. (in-vitro)
5. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R1a. (in-vitro)
6. Smith and Nephew 2011 Laboratory Report DS/11/027/R1. (in-vitro)
7. Smith and Nephew 2008 Laboratory Report DS/07/224/R4a. (in-vitro)
8. Treston-Aurand, J et al. Impact of Dressing Materials on Central Venous Catheter Infection Rates. J Intraven Nurs 1997; 20: 201–6.
9. Smith & Nephew Data On File Report – 0505005. (in-vitro)
10. Statement reference 200409902-01 Bacterial Viral Barrier claim for IV 3000 Transparent Dressing Family.
11. Campbell H, Carrington M. Peripheral IV cannula dressings: advantages and disadvantages. Br J Nurs. 1999; 8: 1420–2, 1424–7.
12. Tripepi-Bova KA, Woods KD, Loach MC. A comparison of transparent polyurethane and dry gauze dressings for peripheral i.v. catheter sites: rates of phlebitis, infiltration,
and dislodgment by patients. Am J Crit Care. 1997; 6: 377–81.
13. Department of Health (2007). Saving Lives: reducing infection, delivering clean and safe care. High Impact Intervention No: 1 Central Venous Catheter Care Bundle.
14. Department of Health (2003). Winning Ways – Guidelines for working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England – report from the Chief Medical Officer.
15. RCN Standards for infusion therapy, third edition, January 2010.
16. Walton G. Safety statement, January 2011.
17. Wheeler S et al. A prospective, randomised, three-way clinical comparison of a novel, highly permeable, polyurethane dressing with 206 Swan-Ganz pulmonary artery
catheters: OPSITE IV3000 vs. Tegaderm vs. gauze and tape. II. Nursing issues: effectiveness and tolerance as catheter dressings. In: Maki, DG, ed, International Congress
and Symposia Series No. 179, ‘Improving Catheter Site Care’, Royal Society of Medicine Series, London, New York, 1991, 67–72. (in-vitro)
18. Neufeld, M. A randomised control trial of effectiveness of OPSITE Wound vs. IV3000 in maintaining an occlusive central line dressing. McMaster University, Canada 1991. (in-vitro)
19. Besley, M. OPSITE IV3000: Potential for improved quality of life for haemodialysis patients with permanent central venous catheters in Maki, D G ed. International Congress
and Symposium Series No 179 Improving Catheter Site Care, Royal Society of Medical Services Ltd, London. New York, 1991 57–59. (in-vitro)
20. Smith & Nephew 2007 ACTICOAT Site Dressing: A summary of absorbent capacity, antimicrobial and silver release properties. (in-vitro)
21. Smith & Nephew Data On File Report – 0305006. (in-vitro)
22. Smith & Nephew 2004 Laboratory Report – DS/04/096/R1. (in-vitro)
23. Smith & * Results from in-vitro testing Nephew Data On File Report – WRPTSG002-06-01ii. (in-vitro)