Forum topic

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
Statlock/Tegaderm CHG 1658

Our hospital currently uses a statlock catheter stabilization device and a tegaderm CHG on all of our PICC lines, unless there is a contraindication to either.  Does anyone have experience with using the tegaderm CHG 1658 Chlorhexidine Gluconate I.V.  Securement Dressing without a stabilization device?  If so, do you feel the dressing is sufficient without a stabilization device and have you had problems with dislodgement during dressing changes?

jmhommes's picture
Full disclosure I work for 3M

Full disclosure I work for 3M Medical Solutions Division. The Tegaderm CHG IV Securement Dressings meet the requirements and definitions of INS 2021 as an integrated securement device (ISD).  The 1657 has been tested after 7 days of weartime with a simulated PICC catheter on healthy human volunteers to have a mean peak axial pull force rate of 7.9 pounds (amount of force required to dislodge the catheter).  I am able to share several customer references who have successfully used the 1657 as a stand-alone ISD for PICCs.  

Joseph Hommes BSN, RN, VA-BC


I own a Vascular Access

I own a Vascular Access company and I never use a stabilization device, (i.e statlock) with the CHG tegraderm, it is one of the reasons that I like it.  It is clean, neat and less devices that can cause skin breakdown.  Now if I could only get the SNF nurses to stop cutting the dressing off from around the gel pad, and leaving that gel pad in place, Ugh.

Denise Doscher RN, VA-BC, CRNI


Log in or register to post comments