Novel Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Securement for Children and Catheter Failure Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) facilitate essential treatment. Failure of these essential devices is frequent and new securement strategies may reduce failure and improve patient outcomes. Objective: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of novel PIVC securement technologies for children to reduce catheter failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-arm, parallel group, superiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 regional Australian hospitals from February 5, 2020, to January 14, 2022. Children aged 6 months to 8 years who were anticipated to require admission with a PIVC for at least 24 hours of in hospital treatment were eligible. Data were analyzed from May 25, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard care, bordered polyurethane (Tegaderm [3M]), integrated securement dressing (SorbaView SHIELD [Medline]), and integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (Secureport IV). One catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was PIVC failure, defined as premature cessation of PIVC function for any reason prior to completion of planned treatment. Secondary outcomes were PIVC complications (any time dislodgement, occlusion, infiltration, partial dislodgement, extravasation, device leaking, phlebitis, pain), PIVC longevity, intervention acceptability (clinicians, participants, caregivers; 0-10 scale), and pain on removal (participants and caregivers; 0-10 scale relevant to age), adverse events, and health care costs. Results: A total of 383 patients (51% female; median age 36 [25th-75th percentiles, 22-72] months) were randomized 134 to standard care, 118 to integrated securement dressing, and 131 to integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive. PIVC failure was lowest in integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (15 [12%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84) compared with integrated securement dressing (24 [21%]; aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47-1.28) and standard care (43 [34%]). Direct costs were significantly lower for integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (median, Australian dollars [A$], 312 [A$1 is equal to $0.65 US dollars]; IQR, A$302-A$380) and integrated securement dressing (median, A$303; IQR, A$294-A$465) compared with standard care (median, A$341; IQR, A$297-A$592; P ≤ .002) when considering the economic burden related to failure of devices. PIVC longevity and intervention acceptability were similar across all groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, PIVCs secured with integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive, in comparison with standard care, bordered polyurethane dressings, were associated with significantly reduced PIVC failure, for children admitted to hospital via the emergency department. Further research should focus on implementation in inpatient units where prolonged dwell and reliable intravenous access is most needed. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12619001026112.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Versus Centrally Inserted Central Catheter for In-Hospital Infusion Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). METHODS: Prospective cohort study was followed by an economic analysis over a 30-day time horizon. Propensity score matching was used to select hospitalized adults with similar indications for PICC or CICC. The composite outcome was device removal or replacement because of complications before the end of treatment. The economic evaluation was based on a decision tree model for cost-effectiveness analysis, with calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per catheter removal avoided. All costs are presented in Brazilian reais (BRL) (1 BRL = 0.1870 US dollar). RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were followed in each group; 172 (79.3%) of those receiving a PICC and 135 (62.2%) of those receiving a CICC had no device-related complication, respectively. When comparing the events leading to device removal, the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the CICC group (hazard ratio 0.20; 95% CI 0.11-0.35). The cost of PICC placement was BRL 1290.98 versus BRL 467.16 for a CICC. In the base case, the ICER for placing a PICC instead of a CICC was BRL 3349.91 per removal or replacement avoided. On univariate sensitivity analyses, the model proved to be robust within an ICER range of 2500.00 to 4800.00 BRL. CONCLUSIONS: PICC placement was associated with a lower risk of complications than CICC placement. Although the cost of a PICC is higher, its use avoided complications and need for catheter replacement before the end of treatment.

The implementation of a standardized optimal procedure for peripheral venous catheters' management: Results from a multi-dimensional assessment.

Peripheral Venous Catheter (PVC) is a widely used device in the hospital setting and is often associated with significant adverse events that may impair treatment administration and patient health. The aim of the present study is to define the incremental benefits related to the implementation and the standardized and simultaneous use of three disposable devices for skin antisepsis, infusion, and cleaning, assuming the hospital's point of view, from an effectiveness, efficiency, and organizational perspective. For the achievement of the above objective, real-life data were collected by means of an observational prospective study, involving two hospitals in the Liguria Region (Northern Italy). Consecutive cases were enrolled and placed into two different scenarios: 1) use of all the three disposable devices, thus representing the scenario related to the implementation of a standardized optimal procedure (Scenario 1); 2) use of only one or two disposable devices, representing the scenario related to not being in a standardized optimal procedure (Scenario 2). For the definition of effectiveness indicators, the reason for PVC removal and the PVC-related adverse events occurrence were collected for each patient enrolled. In addition, an activity-based costing analysis grounded on a process-mapping technique was conducted to define the overall economic absorption sustained by hospitals when taking in charge patients requiring a PVC. Among the 380 patients enrolled in the study, 18% were treated with the standardized optimal procedure (Scenario 1). The two Scenarios differed in terms of number of patients for whom the PCV was removed due to the end of therapy (86.8% versus 39.40%, p-value = 0.000), with a consequent decrease in the adverse events occurrence rate. The economic evaluation demonstrated the sustainability and feasibility of implementing the standardized optimal procedure specifically related to the need for lower economic resources for the hospital management of adverse events occurred (€19.60 versus €21.71, p-value = 0.0019). An organizational advantage also emerged concerning an overall lower time to execute all the PVC-related activities (4.39 versus 5.72 minutes, p-value = 0.00). Results demonstrate the feasibility in the adoption of the standardized optimal procedure for PVC management, with significant advantages not only from a clinical point of view, but also from an organizational and economic perspective, thus being able to increase the overall operational efficiency of the hospitals.

Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Applicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial. METHODS: A systematic studies search in the public databases PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (updated to May 1, 2020) was performed to identify eligible researches. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were performed using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this final meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that compared with PICC, TIVAP was associated with a higher first-puncture success rate (OR:2.028, 95%CI:1.25-3.289, P<0.05), a lower accidental removal rate (OR:0.447, 95%CI:0.225-0.889, P<0.05) and lower complication rates, including infection (OR:0.570, 95%CI: 0.383-0.850, P<0.05), occlusion (OR:0.172, 95%CI:0.092-0.324, P<0.05), malposition (OR:0.279, 95%CI:0.128-0.608, P<0.05), thrombosis (OR:0.191, 95%CI, 0.111-0.329, P<0.05), phlebitis (OR:0.102, 95%CI, 0.038-0.273, P<0.05), allergy (OR:0.155, 95%CI:0.035-0.696, P<0.05). However, no difference was found in catheter life span (P>0.05) and extravasation (P>0.05). Moreover, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use (weighted mean difference:3.132, 95%CI:2.434-3.83, P<0.05), but is much similar in 12 months use (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: For the patients with non-hematological malignancies, TIVAP was superior to PICC in the data related to placement and the incidence of complications. Meanwhile, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use, but it is much similar in twelve-month use.

Effect of infusion set replacement intervals on catheter-related bloodstream infections (RSVP): a randomised, controlled, equivalence (central venous access device)-non-inferiority (peripheral arterial catheter) trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of infusion set use to prevent life-threatening catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day (intervention) versus 4-day (control) infusion set replacement to prevent CRBSI in patients with central venous access devices (tunnelled cuffed, non-tunnelled, peripherally inserted, and totally implanted) and peripheral arterial catheters. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Standard Versus Long Peripheral Catheters for Multiday IV Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: In children, intravenous therapy (IVT) is generally administered via peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) (2-6 cm in length). There is evidence that PIVCs are unreliable after 2 days. Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) (6-15 cm in length) could improve the delivery of IVT. The aim of this trial was to determine if LPCs could decrease catheter failure and the number of catheters in children receiving multiday IVT. METHODS: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial conducted at Monash Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were from the ages of 1 to 17 years, undergoing surgery and requiring >48 hours of postoperative IVT. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2.5-cm 22G PIVC or an 8-cm 22G LPC. RESULTS: Seventy-two children were randomly assigned, 36 received PIVCs, and 36 received LPCs. The median duration of IVT was 5.1 days and was similar between groups (P = .9). Catheter failure was higher for PIVCs than LPCs (66.7% vs 19.4%; relative risk [RR]: 3.4; P = .0001 or 187.9 vs 41.0 failures per 1000 catheter-days). Infiltration was the most common reason for PIVC failure (33.3% vs 2.8%; RR: 12.0; P = .001). LPCs exhibited superior life span (4.7 vs 3.5 days [median]; P = .01). Children with LPCs were twice as likely to complete therapy with a single catheter (80.6% vs 38.9%; RR: 2.1; P = .0006). CONCLUSIONS: LPCs reduce catheter failure and total catheters in children. They should be considered as the first-line device for peripheral access in any child receiving prolonged IVT.

Propensity-adjusted cost analysis of radial versus femoral access for neuroendovascular procedures.

BACKGROUND: Transradial artery (TRA) access for neuroendovascular procedures is associated with fewer complications than transfemoral artery (TFA) access. This study compares hospital costs associated with TRA access to those associated with TFA access for neurointerventions. METHODS: Elective neuroendovascular procedures at a single center were retrospectively analyzed from October 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019. Hospital costs for each procedure were obtained from the hospital financial department. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean hospital costs after propensity adjustment between patients who underwent TRA compared with TFA access. RESULTS: Of the 338 elective procedures included, 63 (19%) were performed through TRA versus 275 (81%) through TFA access. Diagnostic procedures were more common in the TRA cohort (51 of 63, 81%) compared with the TFA cohort (197 of 275, 72%), but the difference was not significant (p=0.48). The TRA cohort had a shorter length of hospital stay (mean (SD) 0.3 (0.5) days) compared with the TFA cohort (mean 0.7 (1.3) days; p=0.02) and lower hospital costs (mean $12 968 ($6518) compared with the TFA cohort (mean $17 150 ($10 946); p=0.004). After propensity adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, angiographic findings, procedure type, sheath size, and catheter size, TRA access was associated with a mean hospital cost of $2514 less than that for TFA access (95% CI -$4931 to -$97; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Neuroendovascular procedures performed through TRA access are associated with lower hospital costs than TFA procedures. The lower cost is likely due to a decreased length of hospital stay for TRA.

Elective replacement of peripheral intravenous cannulas in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Newborns admitted to neonatal units often require vascular access. Peripheral intravenous cannulas allow essential medication, fluids, and/or parenteral nutrition to be delivered. Peripheral intravenous cannulas are often associated with complications, such as extravasation, infiltration, phlebitis, leakage, spontaneous dislodgement, and catheter-associated blood stream infection. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial evaluating standard replacement versus elective replacement (72-96 h) of peripheral intravenous cannula was conducted in a tertiary-level neonatal unit in Melbourne, Australia. The main outcome of this analysis was to assess the risk of combined adverse events associated with elective replacement of peripheral intravenous cannula. A cost analysis of the intervention was also conducted. RESULTS: Combined adverse outcomes noted per infant were 48 (87.27%) in the standard replacement group versus 44 (75.86%) in the elective replacement group (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.71-1.04, p = 0.15). In terms of combined adverse outcome per 1000 intravenous hours, there was a significant risk ratio of 0.81 in the elective group compared with the standard group (95% CI 0.65-0.98, p = 0.04). Gestation (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.96, p = 0.03), male gender (AOR 4.65; 95% CI 1.07-20.28, p = 0.04), elective replacement (AOR 0.12; 95% CI 0.03-0.68, p = 0.01), and the total number of re-sites (AOR 27.84; 95% CI 4.61-168.18, p < 0.001) were significant risk factors associated with adverse events. There were also significantly higher costs involved with elective replacement. CONCLUSION: Elective replacement of peripheral intravenous cannulas was not shown to reduce the risk of combined adverse events. Elective peripheral intravenous cannula replacement also incurred a higher cost.

Peripheral venous access using devices over needles with and without extension: costs and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: to analyze the mean direct cost and peripheral venous access length outcomes using devices over needle with and without extension. METHODS: quantitative, exploratory-descriptive research. Venous punctures and length of the devices were followed. The mean direct cost was calculated by multiplying the time (timed) spent by nursing professionals by the unit cost of labor, adding to the cost of materials. RESULTS: the total mean direct cost of using devices "with extension" (US$ 9.37) was 2.9 times the cost of using devices "without extension" (US$ 4.50), US$ 7.71 and US$ 2.66, respectively. Totaling 96 hours of stay, the "device over needle with extension" showed a lower occurrence of accidental loss. CONCLUSIONS: the use of the "device over needle with extension", despite its higher mean direct cost, was more effective in favoring adequate length of peripheral venous access.

Cost-utilization of peripheral intravenous cannulation in hospitalized adults: An observational study.

AIM: In modern healthcare there is increased focus on optimizing efficiency for every treatment or performed procedure, of which reduction of costs is an important part. With this study, authors aimed to calculate the cost of peripheral intravenous cannulation including all components that influence its price. METHODS: This observational cost-utilization study was conducted between May and October 2016. Hospitalized adults were included in this study, who received usual care. Peripheral intravenous cannulation was carried out according to current hospital protocols, based on international standards for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion. Device costs were assumed equal to the number of attempts multiplied by the fixed supply costs and applicable costs for additional attempts, whereas personnel costs for both nurses and physicians were based on their hourly salary. RESULTS: A total of 1512 patients were included in this study, with a mean of 1.37 (±0.77) attempts and a mean time of 3.5 (±2.7) min were needed for a successful catheter insertion. Adjusted mean costs for peripheral intravenous cannulation were estimated to be €11.67 for each patient, but costs increase as the number of attempts for successful cannulation increases. The cost for patients with a successful first attempt was lower, at approximately €9.32 but increased markedly to €65.34 when five attempts were needed. CONCLUSION: Prevention of multiple attempts may lower the costs, and furthermore, additional technologies applied by nurses to individual patients based on predicted difficult intravenous access will make the application of these additional technologies, in turn, more efficient.

Economic evaluation of peripherally inserted central catheter and other venous access devices: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: With the widespread use of peripherally inserted central catheters, plenty of studies have compared peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices to choose the most appropriate device in different clinical scenarios. Economic attributes are one of the important influencing factors in the selection of venous access devices. Several economic evaluation studies have been conducted in this area, but the evaluation methods, contents, outcomes, and quality of these economic studies have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to map the existing research on the economic evaluations of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices to provide economic evidence for decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device. Second, we appraised the quality of economic evaluation studies in this area to highlight methodological weaknesses and provide an outline for the normative application of this methodology for future research. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken through 11 databases from inception until 11 March 2019, to identify economic evaluation studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices. After screening articles and extracting data independently, we summarized methods, contents, and outcomes of the included studies and appraised their methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included. Among the six studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, four studies performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and noted that peripherally inserted central catheters were more cost-effective than peripheral intravenous catheters. Two studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods but reached different conclusions. Seven of the included studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with central venous catheters. They pointed out that the catheter insertion costs of peripherally inserted central catheters were lower than those for central venous catheters in developed countries, whereas the opposite conclusion was reached in developing countries. Conversely, conclusions regarding the costs for catheter maintenance and catheter insertion and maintenance/removal were inconsistent. Six of the included studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with vascular access ports. They pointed out that the insertion costs of peripherally inserted central catheters were lower than those for vascular access ports, and the maintenance costs were higher than those for vascular access ports. Conversely, conclusions regarding the costs for catheter insertion and maintenance/removal were inconsistent. In addition, the methodological quality of the included studies had plenty of deficiencies, including no discounting, no sensitivity analysis, no incremental analysis, a lack of validity of costs and effectiveness, and so on. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlighted the desperate paucity of economic evaluation studies of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices in amount, evaluation contents, and economic evaluation methods. The conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were consistent. Conversely, the conclusions of the cost analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were inconsistent mainly in the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters, and vascular access ports during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods. This review also highlighted many methodological issues of economic evaluations in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more high-quality economic evaluation studies on peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices by performing cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, or cost-benefit analysis from catheter insertion to removal to provide evidence for clinical practitioners, patients, and decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device in different clinical scenarios.

Intravascular catheter migration: A cross-sectional and health-economic comparison of adhesive and subcutaneous engineered stabilisation devices for intravascular device securement.

The Infusional Services Team at a large cancer centre in Belfast, Northern Ireland, performed a cross-sectional analysis of two catheter securement technologies to address an area of frequent, but underestimated concern - peripherally inserted central catheter migration and dislodgement. Healthcare practitioner and patient feedback, along with economic impact, were assessed. The costs associated with catheter replacement during the adhesive device group study period were calculated using an average cost per insertion, based on material costs required for the procedure. Other factors were the replacement cost of the adhesive engineered securement device with each dressing change. In the subcutaneous securement group, the material costs were adjusted for use of the subcutaneous device as it remained in situ for the duration of the catheters' dwell time. This review found that subcutaneous securement offers both patient and facilities a safe, effective and economical alternative for device securement with patients who are unable to tolerate or have successful securement with adhesive securement devices. The use of subcutaneous devices provided for reduced risks for peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of dislodgement, migration or malposition, alleviating the potential risks to develop catheter-related thrombosis and device-related infection.

In-line filtration reduced phlebitis associated with peripheral venous cannulation: Focus on cost-effectiveness and patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: In a previous trial, in-line filtration significantly prevented postoperative phlebitis associated with short peripheral venous cannulation. This study aims to describe the cost-effectiveness of in-line filtration in reducing phlebitis and examine patients' perception of in-hospital vascular access management with and without in-line filtration. METHODS: We analysed costs associated with in-line filtration: these data were prospectively recorded during the previous trial. Furthermore, we performed a follow-up for all the 268 patients enrolled in this trial. Among these, 213 patients responded and completed 6 months after hospital discharge questionnaires evaluating the perception of and satisfaction with the management of their vascular access. RESULTS: In-line filtration group required 95.60€ more than the no-filtration group (a mean of € 0.71/patient). In terms of satisfaction with the perioperative management of their short peripheral venous cannulation, 110 (82%) and 103 (76.9%) patients, respectively, for in-line filtration and control group, completed this survey. Within in-line filtration group, 97.3% of patients were satisfied/strongly satisfied; if compared with previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, 11% of them recognised in-line filtration as a relevant causative factor in determining their satisfaction. Among patients within the control group, 93.2% were satisfied/strongly satisfied, although up to 30% of them had experienced postoperative phlebitis. At the qualitative interview, they recognised no difference than previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, and mentioned postoperative phlebitis as a common event that 'normally occurs' during a hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In-line filtration is cost-effective in preventing postoperative phlebitis, and it seems to contribute to increasing patient satisfaction and reducing short peripheral venous cannulation-related discomfort.

Effect of tunneled and nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of tunneled and nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement under B-mode ultrasound. METHODS: A single center, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, prospective trial was conducted in Guangzhou, China, between July 2018 and May 2019. A total of 174 participants were randomized to the experimental group (tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter) or the control group (nontunneled peripherally inserted central catheter) and were followed until extubation. Basic characteristics, peripherally inserted central catheter characteristics, the incidence of complications, and the costs of peripherally inserted central catheter placement and maintenance were collected. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 168 of the participants had successful peripherally inserted central catheter placements (85/87, 97.7% in the experimental group and 83/87, 95.4% in the control group, P = 0.682). Compared to the control group, the experimental group had a lower incidence of complications during the placement (18.4% vs 32.2%, P = 0.036), a lower incidence of wound oozing (27.6% vs 57.5%, P < 0.001), a lower incidence of medical adhesive-related skin injury (9.2% vs 25.3%, P = 0.005), a lower incidence of venous thrombosis (1.1% vs 9.2%, P = 0.034), a lower incidence of catheter dislodgement (1.1% vs 9.2%, P = 0.034), and lower costs of peripherally inserted central catheter maintenance at 1, 2, and 3 months (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter may be recommended for good effectiveness.

Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer-A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial.

BACKGROUND: A reliable central venous access device is a cornerstone in the treatment of cancer. Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implanted chest ports (PORT) are commonly used for the delivery of chemotherapy. Both types of catheter can cause adverse events such as catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT), infection and mechanical complications. METHOD: We conducted a randomized controlled trial including 399 patients with cancer and performed a health economic evaluation investigating the cost related to PICCs and PORTs using several clinically relevant dimensions from a healthcare perspective. The cost was determined using process and cost estimate models. RESULT: PICCs are associated with a higher total cost when compared with PORTs. Combining the costs of all categories, the prize per inserted device was 824.58 EUR for PICC and 662.34 EUR for PORT. When adjusting for total catheter dwell time the price was 6.58 EUR/day for PICC and 3.01 EUR/day for PORT. The difference in CR-DVT was the main contributor to the difference in cost. The daily cost of PICC is approximately twice to that of PORT. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that the cost from a healthcare perspective is higher in cancer patients receiving a PICC than to those with a PORT. The difference is driven mainly by the cost related to the management of adverse events. Our findings are relevant to anaesthetists, oncologists and vascular access clinicians and should be considered when choosing vascular access device prior to chemotherapy.

Custo direto dos procedimentos para o tratamento do evento adverso flebite em Unidade de Internação Clínica / Costo directo de los procedimientos para el tratamiento del evento adverso de flebitis en una Unidad de Hospitalización Clínica / Direct cost of procedures for phlebitis treatment in an Inpatient Unit

RESUMO Objetivo: Identificar o custo direto médio dos procedimentos realizados para o tratamento do evento adverso flebite em pacientes de uma Unidade de Internação Clínica e estimar o custo dos procedimentos realizados para o tratamento das flebites nesta unidade. Método: Pesquisa quantitativa, exploratório-descritiva, do tipo estudo de caso único. Inicialmente, identificaram-se os registros dos procedimentos realizados para o manejo das flebites em 2017. Em seguida, o custo foi calculado multiplicando o tempo (cronometrado) despendido por técnicos de enfermagem pelo custo unitário da mão de obra direta, somando-o ao custo dos materiais. Resultados: Foram notificadas 107 flebites referentes a 96 pacientes. No tratamento dos diferentes graus de flebite, realizaram-se três procedimentos "aplicação de pomada de extrato de flor de camomila"; "aplicação de compressas"; "instalação de acesso venoso periférico". A "instalação de acesso venoso periférico com cateter Íntima®" correspondeu ao procedimento mais oneroso (US$ 8,90-DP=0,06). Considerando o registro da execução de 656 (100%) procedimentos, a estimativa do custo direto médio total correspondeu a US$ 866,18/ano. Conclusão: O conhecimento sobre os custos dos procedimentos pode subsidiar tomadas de decisão que incrementem a alocação eficiente dos recursos consumidos.

RESUMEN Objetivo: Identificar el costo directo promedio de los procedimientos realizados para el tratamiento del evento adverso de flebitis en pacientes de una Unidad de Hospitalización Clínica y estimar el costo de los procedimientos realizados para el tratamiento de flebitis en esta unidad. Método: Cuantitativo, exploratorio-descriptivo, tipo de estudio de caso único. Inicialmente, en 2017, se identificaron los registros de los procedimientos realizados para el tratamiento de la flebitis. Luego, el costo se calculó multiplicando el tiempo (cronometrado) gastado por los técnicos de enfermería por el costo unitario de la mano de obra directa, agregándolo al costo de los materiales. Resultados: Se informaron 107 flebitis referidas a 96 pacientes. En el tratamiento de los diferentes grados de flebitis, se llevaron a cabo tres procedimientos: "aplicación de ungüento de extracto de flor de manzanilla"; "Aplicación de compresas"; "Instalación de acceso venoso periférico". La "instalación de acceso venoso periférico con un catéter Íntima®" correspondió al procedimiento más costoso (US$ 8.90-SD=0.06). Considerando el registro de la ejecución de 656 (100%) procedimientos, la estimación del costo directo promedio total correspondió a US$ 866.18/año. Conclusión: El conocimiento sobre los costos de los procedimientos puede respaldar la toma de decisiones que aumenta la asignación eficiente de los recursos consumidos.

ABSTRACT Objective: To identify the average direct cost of the procedures performed for phlebitis treatment in patients in an Inpatient Unit and estimate the costs of the procedures performed to treat phlebitis in this unit. Method: A quantitative, exploratory-descriptive, single-case study. Initially, records of the procedures performed for phlebitis management were identified. Then, the cost was calculated by multiplying the execution time (timed using a chronometer) spent by nursing technicians by the unit cost of direct labor, added to the cost of materials in 2017. Results: 107 phlebitis referring to 96 patients were reported. To treat the different grades of phlebitis, three procedures were carried out "application of ointment of chamomile flower extract"; "Compress application"; "Peripheral venous access installation". "Peripheral venous access installation with Íntima® catheter" corresponded to the most expensive procedure (US$ 8.90-SD=0.06). Considering the record of the execution of 656 (100%) procedures, the total average direct cost estimate corresponded to US$ 866.18/year. Conclusion: Knowledge about the costs of procedures can support decision making that increase allocation efficiency of consumed resources.

Peripheral venous access using devices over needles with and without extension: costs and outcomes / Acceso venoso periférico utilizando dispositivos de aguja con y sin extensión: costos y resultados / Acesso venoso periférico utilizando dispositivos sobre agulha com e sem extensão: custos e desfechos

ABSTRACT Objectives: to analyze the mean direct cost and peripheral venous access length outcomes using devices over needle with and without extension. Methods: quantitative, exploratory-descriptive research. Venous punctures and length of the devices were followed. The mean direct cost was calculated by multiplying the time (timed) spent by nursing professionals by the unit cost of labor, adding to the cost of materials. Results: the total mean direct cost of using devices "with extension" (US$ 9.37) was 2.9 times the cost of using devices "without extension" (US$ 4.50), US$ 7.71 and US$ 2.66, respectively. Totaling 96 hours of stay, the "device over needle with extension" showed a lower occurrence of accidental loss. Conclusions: the use of the "device over needle with extension", despite its higher mean direct cost, was more effective in favoring adequate length of peripheral venous access.

RESUMEN Objetivos: analizar el costo directo promedio y los resultados de permanencia del acceso venoso periférico, utilizando dispositivos de aguja con y sin extensión. Métodos: investigación cuantitativa, exploratoria descriptiva. Se siguieron los pinchazos venosos y el tiempo de permanencia de los dispositivos. El costo directo promedio se calculó multiplicando el tiempo (cronometrado) dedicado por los profesionales de enfermería por el costo unitario de la mano de obra, lo que se suma al costo de los materiales. Resultados: el costo directo promedio total de usar dispositivos "extendidos" (US$ 9,37) fue 2,9 veces el costo de usar dispositivos "no extendidos" (US$ 4,50) de materiales, US$ 7.71 y US$ 2.66, respectivamente. Con un total de 96 horas de estadía, el "dispositivo de aguja extendida" mostró una menor ocurrencia de pérdida accidental. Conclusiones: a pesar del costo directo promedio más alto, el uso de un "dispositivo de aguja extendida" fue más efectivo para favorecer un tiempo de acceso venoso periférico adecuado.

RESUMO Objetivos: analisar o custo direto médio e os desfechos de permanência de acesso venoso periférico, utilizando dispositivos sobre agulha com e sem extensão. Métodos: pesquisa quantitativa, exploratório-descritiva. Acompanharam-se as punções venosas e o tempo de permanência dos dispositivos. Calculou-se o custo direto médio multiplicando-se o tempo (cronometrado) despendido por profissionais de enfermagem pelo custo unitário da mão de obra, somando-se ao custo dos materiais. Resultados: o custo direto médio total do uso de dispositivo "com extensão" (US$ 9,37) foi 2,9 vezes do que o custo do uso de dispositivo "sem extensão" (US$ 4,50), destacando-se os custos dos materiais, US$ 7,71 e US$ 2,66, respectivamente. Totalizando 96 horas de permanência, o "dispositivo sobre agulha com extensão" apresentou menor ocorrência de perda acidental. Conclusões: o uso do "dispositivo sobre agulha com extensão", apesar do maior custo direto médio, foi mais eficaz para favorecer o adequado tempo de permanência do acesso venoso periférico.

Development of a Training Program in Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists Using an N-of-1 Method.

Patients wait an average of 23 hours for a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in our hospital. Long waits lead to delays in discharge and medication administration. For quality improvement, development of a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) PICC line backup service was proposed. This project collected benchmarking data about the current PICC line service over 3 months. The Intravenous (IV) Nursing Unit and the Interventional Radiology Division teams insert an average of 8.1 PICC lines daily, but the demand for PICC lines is 12 insertions per day; thus, the current, combined PICC service meets 66% of its demand. The CRNAs insert IV catheters daily and are eligible to insert PICC lines. A PICC training pro-gram was developed to train a CRNA in a standardized curriculum with simulation using a partial-task trainer. Using an N-of-1 method, the CRNA inserted 10 PICCs over 3 weeks under the guidance of an IV team PICC nurse. The CRNA reached a level of competence in PICC insertion after 10 attempts, with a 70% success rate, in intervals equivalent to those of IV PICC RNs. A CRNA can be trained in a short timeframe as a resource to decrease waiting for patients needing PICC lines.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Low-Cost, Domestic Short Peripheral Catheters Versus Higher-Priced, Imported Short Peripheral Catheters.

This prospective study has been designed with the hypothesis that low unit price does not necessarily mean cost-effectiveness. Low-cost, domestic short peripheral catheters (SPCs) and higher-priced, imported SPCs were compared in 2 different time periods. With the use of the higher-priced, imported SPCs, the rate of successful insertion on first attempt was increased (P < .001), and the development of complications was reduced (P < .001). The study revealed that $345 was saved per 1000 catheters when the catheter with the higher unit price was chosen. Although the domestic SPCs had a low unit price, their use resulted in greater health care expenses.