Improving Stability, Reducing Complications, and Streamlining Care
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are essential for delivering reliable vascular access, but maintaining secure, stable placement throughout the full dwell time can be challenging. Dressing disruptions, migration, and unplanned dislodgement not only impact patient comfort but also place additional pressure on already stretched nursing teams. Subcutaneous anchor securement systems (SASS) offer a proven solution that simplifies securement from insertion to removal, supporting safer, more efficient PICC management in any clinical setting.
This article highlights seven key benefits of using a subcutaneous anchor securement system for PICCs, helping clinicians and procurement teams understand how it improves stability, reduces complications, and delivers measurable workflow and cost efficiencies. Whether you’re reinforcing best practice with existing users or exploring adoption in new areas, these evidence‑driven advantages demonstrate why SASS devices stand out as a dependable securement choice.
Why Subcutaneous Anchor Securement Systems Work: The Core Benefits
1. Secure 24/7 Stabilisation1
Secure 24/7 stabilisation is essential to maintaining consistent catheter position throughout the full dwell time, helping to reduce both migration and accidental dislodgement. The SECURED randomised clinical trial demonstrated that subcutaneous anchor securement systems (SASS) provide significantly greater stability for non-cuffed CVCs in paediatric patients, with dislodgement rates reduced from 22.7 per cent with sutureless devices to just 5.2 per cent[1]. This consistent stabilisation also supported longer dwell times, with SASS‑secured catheters remaining in situ for an average of 25.5 days compared with 23.4 days using adhesive devices1.
Further evidence reinforces the value of reliable, round‑the‑clock stabilisation. Large scale observational data in oncology patients showed that SASS almost eliminated unplanned PICC removals due to partial or complete dislodgement, reducing the rate from 12 per cent with adhesive devices to only 0.4 per cent[2]. Systematic review findings confirm this trend, with SASS showing the lowest median incidence of migration and dislodgement compared with suture based or adhesive securement methods[3]. Together, these data highlight the strong clinical benefit of secure, continuous stabilisation in keeping central catheters precisely where they need to be.
2. Insertion‑to‑Removal Device
SASS provides securement that remains reliable from the moment of insertion through to final removal, eliminating the need for weekly re‑anchoring or routine device replacement[4].
The system is designed to stay in place for the entire lifespan of the PICC, so clinicians are freed from repeated securement maintenance, and patients avoid the discomfort and disruption that come with frequent adjustments[5].
This long-term stability:
- supports consistent therapy delivery
- reduces unnecessary handling of the site and
- contributes to a smoother, less labour-intensive care pathway for both patients and staff1.
3. Reduced Dressing Changes and Interventions
SASS devices help minimise the number of dressing changes and clinical interventions required by providing a stable and dependable form of securement that is far less affected by patient movement[6],[7].
Traditional dressings often loosen or shift when patients are active, leading to repeated disruptions, increased handling of the site and unnecessary additional workload for nursing teams7,[8].
By preventing these movement‑related dressing failures, SASS supports cleaner, more stable sites that remain protected for longer, reducing the frequency of re‑dressing and lowering the risk of contamination associated with repeated access6, 8, [9]. This reduction in interruptions not only streamlines workflow but also helps nurses direct more time toward patient care rather than ongoing maintenance tasks9, [10].
4. Lower Risk of Dislodgement‑Related Complications
Reducing catheter dislodgement helps prevent the additional workload that unplanned device issues create for already stretched clinical teams. When securement remains stable throughout the dwell time, staff spend less time on troubleshooting, re‑dressing and emergency replacement procedures. This consistency allows teams with limited staffing resource to maintain safer, more reliable vascular access management without the disruption caused by securement failure.
Fewer dislodgement‑related complications also protect the continuity of treatment. Stable catheters are far less likely to require premature removal, which helps avoid therapy delays and prevents the need to open additional devices unnecessarily. By keeping each catheter in place for its intended duration, services reduce wasted stock, streamline patient pathways and maintain smoother, interruption‑free delivery of treatment.
5. Improved Patient Experience
SASS devices can significantly enhance the overall patient experience by reducing the discomfort and disruption commonly associated with traditional securement methods. The device maintains stable securement without relying on repeated adhesive reinforcement, patients experience far fewer episodes of dressing manipulation or painful re‑taping, which can be particularly distressing during longer treatment courses.
This stability is especially valuable for individuals undergoing extended (longer-term) therapies or for patients who are frequently mobile, as ongoing movement and routine activity place strain on standard dressings and often lead to repeated adjustments.
By minimising these interruptions and the discomfort that accompanies them, SASS helps create a smoother, less intrusive treatment experience that supports both patient comfort and continuity of care.
6. Cost Efficiency Over the Full Dwell Time
SASS devices provide clear cost efficiencies across the full dwell time by reducing dislodgement, lowering complication rates and decreasing the need for repeated dressings or device replacements.
In the SECURED trial, SASS demonstrated significantly superior performance compared with sutureless securement devices, with dislodgement reduced from 22.7 percent to 5.2 percent, longer average dwell times (25.5 days versus 23.4 days), fewer partial and total dislodgements and fewer overall complications during catheter dwell1. The study also reported fewer catheter‑related adverse events, including lower rates of CLABSI, and demonstrated a direct per‑patient saving of AU$36.60, supporting SASS as the preferred securement method for non‑cuffed central venous catheters1.
Additional real‑world evaluations reinforce these economic and clinical benefits.
A product evaluation in adult oncology settings found that adoption of SESD securement reduced PICC migration rates, prevented costly reinsertions and avoided the social and financial burden associated with therapy delays and patient harm, leading the organisation to embed SESD as the standard securement method5.
Similarly, a large comparative study from Northern Ireland showed that replacing StatLock with SASS eliminated catheter replacement events entirely over a full year, generating £17,952 in savings from avoided replacements and a further £59,322 by not requiring device change‑outs, resulting in total savings of £77,2744.
Together, these findings demonstrate that while SASS may have a higher initial cost, its ability to maintain securement, reduce complications and prevent avoidable clinical activity aligns strongly with value‑based procurement principles and delivers substantial financial and operational benefits across the entire therapy pathway.
7. Ideal for Busy or High‑Turnover Clinical Areas
SASS devices are particularly well suited to busy or high‑turnover clinical areas, where staff rely on securement solutions that remain stable despite frequent patient movement and demanding workflows. By providing consistent and reliable catheter and line stabilisation, they support safer practice across wards, oncology units and in home‑care environments, reducing the time clinicians spend re‑securing devices and addressing dressing disruptions. This makes them especially effective in settings where maintaining dressings can be more challenging, helping teams maintain device integrity and focus more time on direct patient care.
Conclusion
SASS devices continue to offer a meaningful combination of clinical reliability, workflow efficiency, and long‑term value for teams managing PICCs across a wide range of settings. By delivering consistent stabilisation from insertion to removal, it supports safer patient care while reducing the time and resources often lost to dressing maintenance and unplanned complications. These benefits make it a compelling choice for both established users and organisations exploring improved securement solutions, particularly within Health Boards seeking sustainable solutions.
References
[1] Kleidon T, et al. Securement to prevent noncuffed central venous catheter dislodgement in paediatrics: The SECURED superiority randomised clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics. 2024.
[2] Hawes M, McCormick C, Gilbert G. A retrospective study of subcutaneous anchor securement systems in oncology patients. Journal of Vascular Access. 2023.
[3] Bell T, et al. Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of CVAD securement. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access. 2022.
[4] McParlan D, et al. Intravascular catheter migration: A cross‑sectional and health‑economic comparison of adhesive and subcutaneous engineered stabilisation devices for intravascular device securement. J Vasc Access. 2019 Jun.
[5] Culverwell M, et al. Do subcutaneously engineered stabilisation devices reduce PICC migration? A product evaluation report. Australian Journal of Cancer Nursing. 2020;21(2).
[6] Brescia F, et al. Subcutaneously anchored securement for peripherally inserted central catheters: Immediate, early, and late complications. J Vasc Access. 2021 Jun
[7] Tomeo A, et al. Subcutaneous anchored securement of centrally inserted central catheter in intensive care unit: A pilot study. J Vasc Access. 2025 Sep.
[8] Vailati D, et al. Choice and management of vascular access in the context of COVID‑19 outbreak in Italy: Recommendations from clinical practice. J Vasc Access. 2020 Nov.
[9] Goossens L, et al. SecurAstaP trial: Securement with SecurAcath versus Statlock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e016058
[10] Zerla PA, et al. Evaluating safety, efficacy, and cost‑effectiveness of PICC securement by subcutaneously anchored stabilisation device. J Vasc Access. 2017 Feb
