Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hickman-type tunnelled catheters (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and totally implanted ports (PORTs) are used to deliver systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) via a central vein. We aimed to compare complication rates and costs of the three devices to establish acceptability, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the devices for patients receiving SACT. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (Cancer and Venous Access [CAVA]) of three central venous access devices: PICCs versus Hickman (non-inferiority; 10% margin); PORTs versus Hickman (superiority; 15% margin); and PORTs versus PICCs (superiority; 15% margin). Adults (aged ≥18 years) receiving SACT (≥12 weeks) for solid or haematological malignancy from 18 oncology units in the UK were included. Four randomisation options were available: Hickman versus PICCs versus PORTs (2:2:1), PICCs versus Hickman (1:1), PORTs versus Hickman (1:1), and PORTs versus PICCs (1:1). Randomisation was done using a minimisation algorithm stratifying by centre, body-mass index, type of cancer, device history, and treatment mode. The primary outcome was complication rate (composite of infection, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, inability to aspirate blood, mechanical failure, and other) assessed until device removal, withdrawal from study, or 1-year follow-up. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN44504648. FINDINGS: Between Nov 8, 2013, and Feb 28, 2018, of 2714 individuals screened for eligibility, 1061 were enrolled and randomly assigned, contributing to the relevant comparison or comparisons (PICC vs Hickman n=424, 212 [50%] on PICC and 212 [50%] on Hickman; PORT vs Hickman n=556, 253 [46%] on PORT and 303 [54%] on Hickman; and PORT vs PICC n=346, 147 [42%] on PORT and 199 [58%] on PICC). Similar complication rates were observed for PICCs (110 [52%] of 212) and Hickman (103 [49%] of 212). Although the observed difference was less than 10%, non-inferiority of PICCs was not confirmed (odds ratio [OR] 1·15 [95% CI 0·78-1·71]) potentially due to inadequate power. PORTs were superior to Hickman with a complication rate of 29% (73 of 253) versus 43% (131 of 303; OR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·77]). PORTs were superior to PICCs with a complication rate of 32% (47 of 147) versus 47% (93 of 199; OR 0·52 [0·33-0·83]). INTERPRETATION: For most patients receiving SACT, PORTs are more effective and safer than both Hickman and PICCs. Our findings suggest that most patients receiving SACT for solid tumours should receive a PORT within the UK National Health Service. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Effectiveness, safety and cost reduction of long-term tunneled central venous catheter insertion in outpatients performed by an interventional nephrologist / Eficácia, segurança e redução de custos no implante de cateter venoso central de longa permanência em pacientes dialíticos realizado por nefrologista

Abstract Introduction: Invasive procedures performed by trained nephrologists can reduce delays in making a definitive vascular access, complications, number of procedures on the same patient, and costs for the Public Health System. Objective: to demonstrate that a long-term tunneled central venous catheter (LTCVC) implanted by a nephrologist is safe, effective, and associated with excellent results. Methods: A retrospective study analyzed 149 consecutively performed temporary-to-long-term tunneled central venous catheter conversions in the operating room (OR) from a dialysis facility from March 2014 to September 2017. The data collected consisted of the total procedures performed, demographic characteristics of the study population, rates of success, aborted procedure, failure, complications, and catheter survival, and costs. Results: the main causes of end stage renal disease (ESRD) were systemic arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus, 37.9% each. Patients had a high number of previous arteriovenous fistula (1.72 ± 0.84) and temporary catheter (2.87 ± 1.9) attempts until a definitive vascular access was achieved, while the preferred vascular site was right internal jugular vein (80%). Success, abortion, and failure rates were 93.3%, 2.7% and 4%, respectively, with only 5.36% of complications (minors). Overall LTCVC survival rates over 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 93.38, 71.81, 54.36, and 30.2%, respectively, with a mean of 298 ± 280 days (median 198 days). The procedure cost was around 496 dollars. Catheter dysfunction was the main reason for catheter removal (34%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that placement of LTCVC by a nephrologist in an OR of a dialysis center is effective, safe, and results in substantial cost savings.

Resumo Introdução: Procedimentos invasivos realizados por nefrologistas podem reduzir o número de procedimentos no mesmo paciente, complicações e atrasos na obtenção de acesso vascular definitivo, bem como proporcionar menor custo para o Sistema de Saúde. Objetivo: Demonstrar a segurança, a eficácia e os resultados dos implantes de cateteres venosos centrais de longa permanência (CLP) realizados por nefrologista sem fluoroscopia. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo que analisou 149 implantes de CLP por nefrologista no centro cirúrgico de clínica de diálise, sem auxílio de fluoroscopia, no período de março/2014 a setembro/2017. Os dados coletados consistiram em: características demográficas da população estudada, taxas de sucesso, procedimento abortado, falha no procedimento, complicações observadas, patência do cateter e custos. Resultados: Houve um elevado número de tentativas fístulas arteriovenosas (1,72 ± 0,84) e de cateter de curta permanência (2,87 ± 1,9) até a realização de um acesso vascular definitivo. O sítio vascular preferido foi a veia jugular interna direita (80%). Taxas de sucesso, procedimentos abortados e falhas foram de 93,3%, 2,7% e 4,0%, respectivamente, com apenas 5,36% de pequenas complicações. A patência dos CLP com 1, 3, 6 e 12 meses foram de 93,38%, 71,81, 54,36% e 30,2%, respectivamente, com média de 298 ± 280 dias (mediana 198 dias). Os custos dos procedimentos foram em torno de US$ 496. Disfunção foi o principal motivo da remoção do cateter (34%). Conclusão: Nossa análise mostra que o implante de CLP por nefrologista no centro cirúrgico de clínica de diálise é eficaz e seguro e está associado à redução significativa de custos.

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.

Complications and Costs of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Compared With Implantable Port Catheters for Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implantable port catheters (IPCs) are 2 most common central venous access for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, no specific evidence exists to guide practitioners on safety and less cost. OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences of complications and costs of PICC and IPC in the treatment of cancer patients with chemotherapy and to provide a basis for better clinical decision making. METHODS: All the cohort studies were searched in the Cochrane Library, JBI, PubMed, Elsevier, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBM, and CNKI from inception to July 2018. Two reviewers screened and selected trials, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Meta-analysis and description of the outcomes were performed by using the RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 761 articles were retrieved, with 15 articles meeting eligibility criteria. Outcome analysis showed no difference in 1-puncture success rate. Peripherally inserted central catheter use was associated with higher complication rates than IPC, including occlusion, infection, malposition, catheter-related thrombosis, extravasation, phlebitis, and accidental removal rate. The life span of IPC was longer than that of PICC, and the costs of IPC were lower. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable port catheter has advantages over PICC in reducing cancer patients' complications and less cost in terms of long-term cancer chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In terms of safety, the results provide evidence for practitioners to choose which type of central venous catheters is better for cancer chemotherapy patients. In terms of costs, practitioners need to make decisions about which type of central venous catheters has less cost.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Economic Impact of Starting Hemodialysis with a Catheter after Predialysis Arteriovenous Fistula Creation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease frequently undergo arteriovenous fistula creation prior to reaching end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but some initiate hemodialysis with a central vein catheter, if their fistula is not yet usable. The clinical consequences of the delay in fistula use have not been quantified in such patients. We compared patients with pre-ESRD fistula surgery who initiated dialysis with a catheter versus a fistula in terms of the frequency of post-dialysis vascular access procedures and complications and their economic impact. METHODS: We identified 205 patients with predialysis fistula creation from 2006 to 2012 at a large dialysis center who started hemodialysis within the ensuing 2 years. Of these, 91 (44%) initiated dialysis with a catheter and 114 (56%) with a fistula. We compared these 2 groups in terms of their annual frequency of percutaneous vascular access procedures, surgical access procedures, total access procedures, hospitalizations due to catheter-related bacteremia, and overall cost of vascular access management. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and fistula type. As compared to patients initiating dialysis with a fistula, those initiating with a catheter had a significantly greater annual frequency of percutaneous access procedures (1.29 [1.19-1.40] vs. 0.75 [0.68-0.82]), surgical access procedures (0.69 [0.61-0.76] vs. 0.59 [0.53-0.66]), total access procedures (1.98 [1.86-2.11] vs. 1.34 [1.26-1.44]), and hospitalizations due to catheter-related bacteremia (0.09 [0.07-0.12] vs. 0.02 [0.01-0.03]). Patients initiating dialysis with a catheter incurred a median overall annual cost of access management that was USD 2,669 higher (USD 6,372 [3,121-12,242) vs. USD 3,703 [1,867-6,953], p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with predialysis fistula creation, those initiating dialysis with a catheter versus a fistula had substantially more frequent percutaneous, surgical, and total vascular access procedures, as well as hospitalizations due to catheter-related bacteremia. The annual cost of access management was substantially higher in those initiating dialysis with a catheter.

Study on the cost attributable to central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection and its influencing factors in a tertiary hospital in China.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVC) have been widely used for patients with severe conditions. However, they increase the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), which is associated with high economic burden. Until now, no study has focused on the cost attributable to CRBSI in China, and data on its economic burden are unavailable. The aim of this study was to assess the cost attributable to CRBSI and its influencing factors. METHODS: A retrospective matched case-control study and multivariate analysis were conducted in a tertiary hospital, with 94 patients (age ≥ 18 years old) from January 2011 to November 2015. Patients with CRBSI were matched to those without CRBSI by age, principal diagnosis, and history of surgery. The difference in cost between the case group and control group during the hospitalization was calculated as the cost attributable to CRBSI, which included the total cost and five specific cost categories: drug, diagnostic imaging, laboratory testing, health care technical services, and medical material. The relation between the total cost attributable to CRBSI and its influencing factors such as demographic characteristics, diagnosis and treatment, and pathogenic microorganism, was analysed with a general linear model (GLM). RESULTS: The total cost attributable to CRBSI was $3528.6, and the costs of specific categories including drugs, diagnostic imaging, laboratory testing, health care technical services, and medical material, were $2556.4, $112.1, $321.7, $268.7, $276.5, respectively. GLM analysis indicated that the total cost was associated with the intensive care unit (ICU), pathogenic microorganism, age, and catheter number, according to the sequence of standardized estimate (ß). ICU contributed the most to the model R-square. CONCLUSION: Central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection represents a great economic burden for patients. More attentions should be paid to further prevent and control this infection in China.

Direct cost of maintenance of totally implanted central venous catheter patency.

OBJECTIVE: to identify the average direct cost of maintaining the patency of totally implanted central venous catheter with heparin at a Day Hospital of a public hospital of high complexity specialized in the treatment of cancer patients, and estimate the average direct cost of replacing heparin with sodium chloride 0.9%. METHOD: quantitative, exploratory-descriptive study, with a sample of 200 non-participant observations of the maintenance of totally implanted central venous catheters with heparin. The average direct cost was calculated by multiplying the (clocked) time spent by professionals to complete the procedure by the direct unit cost of workforce, added to the cost of materials and solutions. RESULTS: the estimated total direct cost of catheter maintenance with heparin was US$ 9.71 (SD=1.35) on average, ranging from US$ 7.98 to US$ 23.28. The estimated total direct cost of maintenance with 0.9% sodium chloride in the place of heparin was US$ 8.81 (SD=1.29) on average, resulting in a reduction of US$ 0.90 per procedure. CONCLUSION: the results contributed to propose strategies to assist in cost containment/minimization in this procedure. The replacement of heparin by 0.9% sodium chloride proved to be an option to reduce the total average direct cost.

Substantial harm associated with failure of chronic paediatric central venous access devices.

Central venous access devices (CVADs) form an important component of modern paediatric healthcare, especially for children with chronic health conditions such as cancer or gastrointestinal disorders. However device failure and complications rates are high.Over 2½ years, a child requiring parenteral nutrition and associated vascular access dependency due to 'short gut syndrome' (intestinal failure secondary to gastroschisis and resultant significant bowel resection) had ten CVADs inserted, with ninesubsequently failing. This resulted in multiple anaesthetics, invasive procedures, injuries, vascular depletion, interrupted nutrition, delayed treatment and substantial healthcare costs. A conservative estimate of the institutional costs for each insertion, or rewiring, of her tunnelled CVAD was $A10 253 (2016 Australian dollars).These complications and device failures had significant negative impact on the child and her family. Considering the commonality of conditions requiring prolonged vascular access, these failures also have a significant impact on international health service costs.

A randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of early cannulation arteriovenous grafts versus tunneled central venous catheters in patients requiring urgent vascular access for hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ecAVGs) are proposed as an alternative to tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) in patients requiring immediate vascular access for hemodialysis (HD). We compared bacteremia rates in patients treated with ecAVG and TCVC. METHODS: The study randomized 121 adult patients requiring urgent vascular access for HD in a 1:1 fashion to receive an ecAVG with or without (+/-) an arteriovenous fistula (AVF; n = 60) or TCVC+/-AVF (n = 61). Patients were excluded if they had active systemic sepsis, no anatomically suitable vessels, or an anticipated life expectancy <3 months. The primary end point was the culture-proven bacteremia rate at 6 months, with the trial powered to detect a reduction in bacteremia from 24% to 5% (α = .05, ß = .8). Secondary end points included thrombosis, reintervention, and mortality. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Culture-proven bacteremia developed in 10 patients (16.4%) in the TCVC arm ≤6 months compared with two (3.3%) in the ecAVG+/-AVF arm (risk ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.56; P = .02). Mortality was also higher in the TCVC+/-AVF cohort (16% [n = 10] vs 5% [n = 3]; risk ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45; P = .04). The difference in treatment cost between the two arms was not significant (£11,393 vs £9692; P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TCVC+/-AVF, a strategy of ecAVG+/-AVF reduced the rate of culture-proven bacteremia and mortality in patients requiring urgent vascular access for HD. The strategy also proved to be cost-neutral.

A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a multicentric Italian experience.

The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1-20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (≤1 year).

Custo da instalação e desligamento de hemodiálise em pacientes com cateter venoso central / Cost of installing and turning off hemodialysis on patients with central venous catheters / Costo de instalación y desconexión de hemodiálisis en pacientes con catéter venoso central

Objetivou-se identificar o custo total médio (CTM) da instalação e desligamento de hemodiálise em pacientes portadores de cateter venoso central. Trata-se de pesquisa quantitativa, exploratória e descritiva na modalidade estudo de caso único, realizada em um hospital universitário público. A amostra, não probabilística, correspondeu à observação de cem instalações e cem desligamentos de hemodiálises em 42 pacientes, durante 23 dias de coleta. Obteve-se o CTM multiplicando-se o tempo despendido por profissionais de enfermagem pelo custo unitário da mão de obra direta, somando-se ao custo dos materiais, soluções e medicamentos. Para a realização dos cálculos, utilizou-se a moeda brasileira (R$). O CTM da instalação foi de R$ 80,10; e do desligamento, de R$ 13,04, totalizando R$ 93,14 por sessão de hemodiálise. Os resultados obtidos favorecerão um melhor planejamento da alocação de recursos humanos, materiais e financeiros, assim, propiciando o incremento de estratégias gerenciais visando à eficiência econômica.

The objective was to identify the average total cost (ATC) for installing and turning off hemodialysis on patients with central venous catheters. This quantitative, exploratory, and descriptive research, in the mode of a single-case study, was conducted in a public university hospital. The non-probabilistic sample corresponded to the observation of 100 installations and 100 terminations of hemodialysis on 42 patients during 23 days of collection. The ATC was calculated by multiplying the time spent by nurses by the unit cost of direct labor, and adding the cost of materials, solutions, and medications. The Brazilian currency (R$) was used for the calculations. The ATC for installation was R$ 80.10 and for shutting off was R$ 13.04, totaling R$ 93.14 per hemodialysis session. The results obtained will facilitate a better planning of the allocation of human, material, and financial resources enabling the increase of managerial strategies aimed at economic efficiency.

Se objetivó identificar el costo medio total (CMT) de la instalación y desconexión de hemodiálisis en pacientes portadores de catéter venoso central. Investigación cuantitativa, exploratoria, descriptiva, modalidad estudio de caso único, realizada en hospital universitario público. Muestra no probabilística correspondiente a la observación de 100 instalaciones y 100 desconexiones de hemodiálisis en 42 pacientes durante 23 días de recolección. Se obtuvo el CMT multiplicando el tiempo empleado por profesionales por el costo unitario de mano de obra directa, sumándosele el costo de materiales, soluciones y medicamentos. Para la realización de los cálculos, se utilizó moneda brasileña (R$). El CMT de la instalación fue de R$80,10, y el de la desconexión, R$13,04; totalizando R$93,14 por sesión de hemodiálisis. Los resultados obtenidos favorecerán una mejor planificación de la utilización de recursos humanos, materiales y financieros, haciendo propicio el incremento de estrategias gerenciales apuntadas a la eficiencia económica.

A dedicated protocol and environment for central venous catheter removal in pediatric patients affected by onco-hematological diseases.

PURPOSE: The removal of long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) is not performed according to evidence-based guidelines, thus conveying the message that it is a procedure of secondary importance. Our study aims at comparing the experience at Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital before and after the implementation of a dedicated protocol and the identification of a specific area to perform such a procedure under the so-called nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA). METHODS: Starting on January 1, 2010, an appropriate protocol regarding long-term CVC removal was applied. Then, data from all patients who underwent CVC removal under NORA regimen were compared with patients who have undergone the same procedure before the beginning of such protocol in terms of complication rate, duration of procedure, and costs. RESULTS: Between January 2010 and December 2012, 266 patients were evaluated for long-term CVC removal under a NORA regimen. Of these, 194 underwent the procedure. In the period from January 2007 to December 2009, 60 out of 82 patients scheduled for elective removal of long-term CVC in the operating theatre were eligible for this study. Median procedure time was 7 min for removal in NORA and 10 min for the operating theatre (p=0.016); no complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Long-term CVC removal is an often-neglected procedure, carrying a small, but definite rate of complications. Our study shows that CVC removal performed in NORA regimen is safe and feasible, also allowing multiple procedures in the same session with prompt management of possible complications and reduction of the anxiety and pain associated with the procedure.

Comparison of hospital length of stay, costs, and readmissions of alteplase versus catheter replacement among patients with occluded central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheter (CVC) occlusion is common, affecting 30% of all CVCs. OBJECTIVE: To compare length of stay (LOS), costs, and readmissions associated with the use of alteplase to clear catheter blockage to outcomes associated with catheter replacement. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study utilizing a large hospital database. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients treated for catheter occlusion from January 2006 to December 2011. MAIN MEASURES: Univariate analyses of patient characteristics and treatment patterns and multivariable regression analyses of postocclusion hospital costs, LOS, and 30- and 90-day readmissions were conducted. KEY RESULTS: We included 34,579 patients treated for a CVC occlusion by replacement (N=1028) or by alteplase (2 mg) administration (N=33,551). Patients receiving alteplase were somewhat younger than those having catheter replacement (60 ± 19 vs 62 ± 20 years old, P=0.0002). After adjusting for patient and hospital factors via regression modeling, average daily postocclusion costs were $317 lower for alteplase recipients than for catheter replacement patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 238.22-392.24; P<0.0001). Adjusted total postocclusion costs were $1419 lower for alteplase recipients versus patients receiving catheter replacement (95% CI: 307.27-2458.12; P=0.0121). Postocclusion operating room/surgery, radiology, and supply costs were significantly lower for alteplase recipients (P<0.001). Average adjusted postocclusion LOS was similar for both groups (P>0.05). Odds of readmission were not significantly different at 30 or 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated for an occluded CVC, alteplase-treated patients had lower daily and total postocclusion costs than patients receiving catheter replacement. Cost differences were mainly driven by lower operating room/surgery, radiology, and supplier costs.

Risk of infection due to medical interventions via central venous catheters or implantable venous access port systems at the middle port of a three-way cock: luer lock cap vs. luer access split septum system (Q-Syte).

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients receive a central venous catheter or port system prior to therapy to assure correct drug administration. Even appropriate hygienic intervention maintenance carries the risk of contaminating the middle port (C-port) of a three-way cock (TWC), a risk that increases with the number of medical interventions. Because of the complexity of the cleaning procedure with disconnection and reconnection of the standard luer lock cap (referred as "intervention"), we compared luer lock caps with a "closed access system" consisting of a luer access split septum system with regard to process optimization (work simplification, process time), efficiency (costs) and hygiene (patient safety). METHODS: For determination of process optimization the workflow of an intervention according to the usual practice and risks was depicted in a process diagram. For determining the actual process costs, we analyzed use of material and time parameters per intervention and used the process parameters for programming the process into a simulation run (n = 1000) to determine the process costs as well as their differences (ACTUAL vs. NOMINAL) within the framework of a discrete event simulation.Additionally cultures were carried out at the TWC C-ports to evaluate possible contamination. RESULTS: With the closed access system, the mean working time of 5.5 minutes could be reduced to 2.97 minutes. The results for average process costs (labour and material costs per use) were 3.92 € for luer lock caps and 2.55 € for the closed access system. The hypothesis test (2-sample t-test, CI 0.95, p-value<0.05) confirmed the significance of the result.In 50 reviewed samples (TWC's), the contamination rate for the luer lock cap was 8% (4 out of 50 samples were positive), the contamination rate of the 50 samples with the closed access system was 0%.Possible hygienic risks (related to material, surroundings, staff handling) could be reduced by 65.38%. CONCLUSIONS: In the present research, the closed access system with a divided split septum was superior to conventional luer lock caps. The advantage of the closed access system lies in the simplified handling for staff, which results in a reduced risk of patient infection due to improved clinical hygiene.

Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies.

PURPOSE: Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies. METHODS: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications. RESULTS: Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09-0.86, P = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

Central venous access: evolving roles of radiology and other specialties nationally over two decades.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate national trends in central venous access (CVA) procedures over 2 decades with regard to changing specialty group roles and places of service. METHODS: Aggregated claims data for temporary central venous catheter and long-term CVA device (CVAD) procedures were extracted from Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1992 through 2011. Central venous catheter and CVAD procedure volumes by specialty group and place of service were studied. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 2011, temporary and long-term CVA placement procedures increased from 638,703 to 808,071 (+27%) and from 76,444 to 316,042 (+313%), respectively. For temporary central venous catheters, radiology (from 0.4% in 1992 to 32.6% in 2011) now exceeds anesthesiology (from 37% to 22%) and surgery (from 30.4% to 11.7%) as the dominant provider group. Surgery continues to dominate in placement and explantation of long-term CVADs (from 80.7% to 50.4% and from 81.6% to 47.7%, respectively), but radiology's share has grown enormously (from 0.7% to 37.6% and from 0.2% to 28.6%). Although volumes remain small (<10% of all procedures), midlevel practitioners have experienced >100-fold growth for most services. The inpatient hospital remains the dominant site for temporary CVA procedures (90.0% in 1992 and 81.2% in 2011), but the placement of long-term CVADs has shifted from the inpatient (from 68.9% to 45.2%) to hospital outpatient (from 26.9% to 44.3%) setting. In all hospital settings combined, radiologists place approximately half of all tunneled catheters and three-quarters all peripherally inserted central catheters. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 2 decades, CVA procedures on Medicare beneficiaries have increased considerably. Radiology is now the dominant overall provider.