Forum topic

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
3636 PICCs
GuardIVa vs Biopatch

Has anyone switched from Biopatch to GuardIVa?  What are your experiences with GuardIVa?

I have, just this morning,

I have, just this morning, written a proposal to begin using the GuardIVa. In our trial we found their hemostatic properties to be impressive. We have never found the biopatch to have any affect on oozing. (and I don't think they claim to either) The GuardIVa is also less costly which is always a good thing in our current economic climate. We perform about 1000 PICC's per year in our facility.

G. Irwin

I read on the package insert that CHG is added to the sponge as a preservative.  Isn't that different than what the BioPatch says?



3636 PICCs

Hi Gwen,

Both products use CHG as antimicrobial agents.

Wendy Erickson RN
Do we know if the

Do we know if the concentration of CHG is the same in these as in Biopatch?  I briefly looked at their website and it appears that this is primarily a hemostatic device.  Doesn't seem that we are comparing apples to apples here, but again, I haev not studied this extensively.  I do know that Biopatch has the evidence and the research to back its use, unlike other products on the market used for insertion site decontamination.

Wendy Erickson RN
Eau Claire WI

Actually GuardIVa and

Actually GuardIVa and Biopatch are the only two listed as bactericidal, not just bacteriostatic. GuardIVa has many independent studies to back up their claim as being effective on microorganisms as well as hemostatic. The biopatch has no such property and could not be applied at time of insertion due to the oozing that often occurs. We would have to place a gauze dressing and then redress after 24 hours. With GuardIVa, we can place it at time of insertion and leave it alone for 7 days. This not only was financially of benefit but also decreased the chance of site contamination and line misplacement.

3636 PICCs

Great to know.  Very nice that cost is less.


 Just as an FYI 



Printed upon every single box of GuardIVa IV™ is this statement: (GuardIVa™) is not clinically tested for its activity to reduce local infections, CRBSIs and skin colonization of microorganisms commonly related to CRBSI.


bioPatch has 92mg of CHG GuardIva has 24mg. I would like to see what some of the infection control leaders have to say. 


It bears mor study in my opinion. 



J Hands
Not absolute


Hi Laurie: The absolute amount of chlorhexidine doesn't automatically correlate to efficacy. The manner in which its carried (i.e. gel pad, sponge, silicone adhesive) and delivered to the skin plays an important role.




John Hands

Director of Marketing

Covalon Technologies Ltd.

Log in or register to post comments