Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shorr, A. F.
Right arrow Articles by Helman, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shorr, A. F.
Right arrow Articles by Helman, D. L.
(Chest. 2003;124:275-284.)
© 2003 American College of Chest Physicians

New Choices for Central Venous Catheters*

Potential Financial Implications

Andrew F. Shorr, MD, MPH, FCCP; Christopher W. Humphreys, MD and Donald L. Helman, MD

* From the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC.

Correspondence to: Andrew F. Shorr, MD, MPH, FCCP, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, 6900 Georgia Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20307; e-mail: afshorr{at}dnamail.com

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the newer antiseptic and antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) relative to uncoated CVCs and to each other.

Design: Decision model analysis of the cost and efficacy of CVCs coated with either chlorhexidine silver sulfadiazine (CSS) or rifampin-minocycline (RM) at preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). The primary outcome is the incremental cost (or savings) to prevent one additional CRBSI. Model estimates are derived from prospective trials of the CSS and RM CVCs and from other studies describing the costs of CRBSIs.

Setting and patients: Hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients requiring placement of a CVC.

Interventions: In the model, patients were managed with either an uncoated CVC, CSS CVC, or RM CVC.

Measurements and main results: The incremental cost-effectiveness of the treated CVCs was calculated as the savings resulting from CRBSIs averted less the additional costs of the newer devices. Sensitivity analysis of the effect of the major clinical inputs was performed. For the base case analysis, we assumed the incidence of CRBSIs was 3.3% with traditional catheters and that the CSS and RM CVC conferred a relative risk reduction for the development of CRBSIs of 60% and 85%, respectively. Despite their significantly higher cost than older catheters, both novel CVCs yield significant savings. Employing either of the treated CVCs saves approximately $10,000 per CRBSI prevented (relative to standard catheters). Comparing the RM CVC to the CSS CVC revealed the RM product to be economically superior, saving nearly $9,600 per CRBSI averted and $81 per patient in the cohort. For sensitivity analysis, we adjusted all model variables by 50% individually and then simultaneously. This demonstrated the model to be most sensitive to the cost of a CRBSI; however, with all inputs skewed by 50% against both the CSS CVC and the RM CVC, these devices remained economically attractive. Under this scenario, use of either treated device was less costly.

Conclusions: Utilization of antiseptic and antibiotic-impregnated CVCs represent an attractive alternative for the prevention of CRBSIs and may lead to significant savings. Of the two newer, coated devices, the RM CVC performs better financially. These observations hold over a range of estimates for our model inputs.

Key Words: bacteremia • catheter-related bloodstream infection • central venous catheter • cost • cost-effectiveness • infection • nosocomial • prevention




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
A. Giacometti, O. Cirioni, R. Ghiselli, F. Orlando, F. Mocchegiani, C. Silvestri, A. Licci, M. De Fusco, M. Provinciali, V. Saba, et al.
Comparative Efficacies of Quinupristin-Dalfopristin, Linezolid, Vancomycin, and Ciprofloxacin in Treatment, Using the Antibiotic-Lock Technique, of Experimental Catheter-Related Infection Due to Staphylococcus aureus
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., October 1, 2005; 49(10): 4042 - 4045.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Pharmacy PracticeHome page
K. K. Haase, K. A. McCracken, and R. L. Akins
Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the Intensive Care Unit Population
Journal of Pharmacy Practice, February 1, 2005; 18(1): 42 - 52.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American College of Chest Physicians.