1. PASV Valve Technology Let Clinical Evidence Be Your Guide

2. A P ressure A ctivated S afety V alve is Located in the Hub of our PASV PICCs or Stem of our PASV Ports PASV Requires 1.8 PSI to aspirate, Normal SVC Pressure 0.1 PSI PASV Resists Blood Reflux, Reduces Occlusions, TPA & CR-BSIs & Is Heparin Free. PASV Has 10 Years of Success in 8 Clinical Trails. What Is PASV? How Does It Work?

3. Study Study Method Service Model Number Product Brand & Type Clinical Outcome University of Singapore (Ong, 2010) Prospective Randomized Trial Radiology Based PICC Placements 392 PICCs Navilyst PASV PICC vs. Bard Groshong PICC 49% Less Phlebitis and 67% fewer Infections St. Joseph’s Hosp. (Ricchezza, et al. 2006) Prospective Surveillance Nursing Based PICC Placements 2.357 PICCs Navilyst PASV PICC vs. Bard Groshong PICC 71% Reduction in Infection Rate in ICU, 50% Reduction in non-ICU. 93% Reduction in TPA Usage Vanderbilt University (Burns, 2005) Retrospective Analysis Radiology Based PICC Placements 12,500 PICC Navilyst PASV PICC vs. Several Different Clamps PICCs 78% Fewer Occlusions, 24% Fewer Infections WakeMed (Buehrle, 2004) Prospective, Randomized Trial IV Nursing 9,634 Catheter Line Days PASV Protector vs. CLC2000 vs. CLAVE PASV had 91% Fewer Occlusions vs. CLAVE and 75% Fewer Occlusions vs. CLC2000 Baylor University (Lamont, 2003) Prospective Randomized Trial Surgery Based Port Placement 539 Ports Navilyst PASV Port vs. Bard Port (Non-Valved) 48% Fewer Blood Withdrawal Failures, 35% Less TPA Usage, Reduced RN Time Spent Managing Occlusions By 88% University of Washington Medical Center (McMahon, 2002) Retrospective Analysis Nursing Based PICC Placements 1.212 PICCs Navilyst PASV PICC vs. Bard Groshong PICC 89% Fewer Repairs and 68% Fewer Exchanges Harborview Medical Center (Hoffer, EK, et al. 2001) Prospective Randomized Trial Radiology Based PICC Placements 100 PICCs Navilyst PASV PICC vs. Bard Groshong PICC 75% Fewer Infections, 29% Fewer Occlusions, 88% Fractures Harborview Medical Center (Hoffer, EK, et al. 1999) Prospective Randomized Trial Radiology Based PICC Placements 362 PICCs Navilyst PASV PICC vs. Cook PICC with Clamps 43% Fewer Infections, 38% Fewer Occlusions PASV Clinical Evidence Matrix

4. Study Location: National University of Singapore Source: Journal of Vascular & Intervention Radiology, 2010 49% Less Phlebitis 67% Fewer Infections PASV PICC vs. Groshong PICC Number of Phlebitis Number of Infections Prospective Randomized Trial of 392 PICC Placements PASV had 49% Less Phlebitis vs. Groshong PASV had 67% fewer Infections vs. Groshong

5. Study Location: St. Joseph’s Hospital (Tampa Florida) Source: FPIC Conference 2006, INS National Conference 2006. PASV Not In UsePASV In Use PICC Infections Per Month ICUNon-ICU PICC Placements vs. TPA Usage 1,348 599 2,357 70 PICC Lines Placed TPA Doses 20052006 Prospective Surveillance of 3,705 PICC Placements Converted to PASV with Inclusive Kit & Maximal Sterile Barrier 71% Infection Reduction in ICU, 50% Infection Reduction in Non-ICU 93% Reduction in TPA Usage PASV PICC vs. Groshong PICC

6. Retrospective Analysis of Over 12,500 PICC Placements PASV had 78% Fewer Occlusions vs. Non-Valved PICCs PASV had 24% Fewer Infections vs. Non-Valved PICCs PASV Lowered Costs on: TPA, CR-BSIs, PICC Exchanges 24% Fewer Infections 78% Fewer Occlusions Study Location: Vanderbilt University Source: Published in JAVA, 2005 % PICCs With Occlusions % PICCs With Infections PASV PICC vs. Non-Valved PICCs

7. Prospective Randomized Trial of 3 Needless Injection Caps with 9,634 Line Days PASV had 91% Fewer Occlusions vs. CLAVE and 75% Fewer Occlusions vs. CLC2000 Study Location: WakeMed Raleigh, NC Source: Journal For The Association For Vascular Access, 2004 Occlusions Per 1,000 Catheter Days PASV Protector vs. CLC2000 & CLAVE 3.4 1.2 0.3

8. Prospective Randomized Trial with 539 Port Placements PASV Reduced Blood Withdrawal Failures By 48% PASV Reduced TPA Usage By 35% PASV Reduced RN Time Spent Managing Occlusions By 88% 48% Fewer Withdrawal Failures Study Source: Baylor University Medical Center, 2003 29% Fewer TPA Doses 88% Less RN Time On Occlusions % Withdrawal Failures % Of Ports Requiring TPA RN Minutes On Occlusions PASV Port vs. Bard Port (Non-Valved)

9. Retrospective Analysis of 1,212 PICCs PASV Reduced the Rate of Catheter Repair by 89% and Exchange by 68% Study Location: University of Washington Medical Center Source: Journal of Infusion Nursing, 2002 89% Fewer Repairs 68% Fewer Exchanges PASV PICC vs. Groshong PICC Number of Repairs Number of Exchanges

10. Prospective Randomized Trial with 100 PICC Placements PASV had 75% Fewer Infections vs. Groshong PASV had 29% Fewer Occlusions vs. Groshong PASV had 88% Fewer Catheter Fractures vs. Groshong 75% Fewer Infections Study Location: Harborview Medical Center Source: Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology, 2001 29% Fewer Occlusions 88% Fewer Fractures Number of Infections Number of Occlusions Number of Fractures PASV PICC vs. Groshong PICC

11. Prospective Randomized Trial with 362 PICC Placements PASV had 58% Fewer Infections vs. Non-Valved PICC PASV had 62% Fewer Occlusions vs. Non-Valved PICC 58% Fewer Infections Study Location: Harborview Medical Center Source: American Journal of Roentgenology, 1999 62% Fewer Occlusions Number of Infections Number of Occlusions PASV PICC vs. Non-Valved PICC