Comparing cost per use of 3M Cavilon No Sting Barrier Film with zinc oxide oil in incontinent patients.

Journal of wound care

PubMedID: 15517755

Baatenburg de Jong H, Admiraal H. Comparing cost per use of 3M Cavilon No Sting Barrier Film with zinc oxide oil in incontinent patients. J Wound Care. 2004;13(9):398-400.
OBJECTIVE
This study compares the total cost of treatment, skin-condition management and prevention of skin breakdown of perianal/buttock skin in incontinent patients receiving 3M Cavilon No Sting Barrier Film (Cavilon NSBF) and zinc oxide oil.

METHOD
This single-centre open-label prospective randomised study involved 40 patients with at least moderate skin damage resulting from incontinence. Patients were randomised to receive either zinc oxide oil or Cavilon NSBF and were treated for 14 days. The study products and other treatment-related products used were recorded, as was the time needed to cleanse the application site and apply the product.

RESULTS
Use of both products resulted in an improvement in skin condition after 14 days, but this was significantly better with Cavilon NSBF than zinc oxide oil. Cavilon NSBF was more cost-effective as fewer applications were required, less time was spent applying the skin barrier product and faster healing rates were achieved. The cost-effectiveness ratio per treatment group showed an improvement of one point in the total score of the skin-assessment scale costs: 28.36 Euro for Cavilon NSBF versus 98.06 Euro for zinc oxide oil.

CONCLUSION
Both products resulted in an improvement in skin condition after 14 days, but Cavilon NSBF was found to be more cost-effective.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST
This study was supported by an educational grant from 3M.