Additionally to the CVC products, we offer a range of PICCs in different set configurations. Designed and inspired by the same obsession that made our central venous catheters the industry leader – with features like e.g. the Arrow BlueFlex Tip.
The Arrowg+ard Blue Advance PICC is designed to protect both internal and external catheter surfaces with chlorhexidine, reducing the risk of these catheter-related complications:
Demonstrated a 92% reduction of fibrin sheath accumulation on catheter surfaces at 31 days2
99.99% colonization reduction in gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial and fungal pathogens for at least 30 days1
Reduced thrombotic intraluminal occlusion as evidenced by 51% reduction in flush pressure to clear thrombus3
Arrowg+ard Blue Advance PICC vs. Unprotected PICCs
In an intravascular in vivo model, Arrowg+ard Blue Advance Protection demonstrated a total of 92% reduction in fibrin sheath when challenged with Staph aureus, as compared to an uncoated PICC control. The Arrowg+ard Blue Advance PICC survived until the end of the study (mean 31 days) with no clinical signs of infection.2
Unprotected PICC Control Catheter
Day 5: Highly infected tissue and significant thrombus formation.
Arrowg+ard Blue Advance PICC
Day 31: Minimal thrombus formation and absence of microbial colonization.*
In vitro data on file 2010: AVER-004371 and AVER-004483. No correlation between in vitro/in vivo testing methods and clinical outcomes have currently been ascertained.
As compared to uncoated PICCs, intravascular ovine model inoculated with Staph aureus: AVAR-000427. No correlation between in vitro/in vivo testing methods and clinical outcomes have currently been ascertained.
As compared to uncoated PICCs, in vitro model measuring flush pressure post exposure to bovine blood: AVER-006376. No correlation between in vitro/in vivo testing methods and clinical outcomes have currently been ascertained.
As compared to uncoated PICCs, intravascular ovine model: VAR-000427. No correlation between in vitro/in vivo testing methods and clinical outcomes have currently been ascertained.
Rosenbauer KA, Herzer JA. Surface morphology and tensile force at breaking point or different kinds of intravenous catheters before and after usage. Scan Electron Microsc. 1981;(Pt3):125-30.
Collins JL, Lutz RJ. In vitro Study of Simultaneous Infusion of Incompatible Drugs in Multilumen Catheters. Heart & Lung. 1991; 20(3):271-7.
Nifong TP and McDevitt TJ. The effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Chest 2011;140;48-53
Grove JR, Pevec WC. “Venous Thrombosis Related to Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters.” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2000; 11: 837-840
Trerotola, S, Stavropoulos, S, Mondschein, J, et al. Triple-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter in patients in the critical care unit: prospective evaluation. Radiology 2010;256(1):312-330