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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Direct cost of peripheral catheterization by nurses / Costo directo del paso de catéter central de inserción periférica por enfermeros / Custo direto da passagem de cateter central de inserção periférica por enfermeiros

ABSTRACT Objective: To measure the average direct cost of peripherally inserted central catheterization performed by nurses in a pediatric and neonatal intensive care unit. Method: A quantitative, exploratory-descriptive, single-case study, whose sample consisted of the non-participant observation of 101 peripherally inserted central catheter procedures. The cost was calculated by multiplying the execution time (timed using a chronometer) spent by nursing professionals, participants in the procedure, by the unit cost of direct labor, added to the cost of materials, drugs, and solutions. Results: The average direct cost of the procedure was US$ 326.95 (standard deviation = US$ 84.47), ranging from US$ 99.03 to US$ 530.71, with a median of US$ 326.17. It was impacted by material costs and the direct labor of the nurses. Conclusion: The measurement of the average direct cost of the peripherally inserted central catheter procedure shed light on the financials of consumed resources, indicating possibilities of intervention aiming to increase efficiency in allocating these resources.

RESUMEN Objetivo: Medir el costo directo promedio del paso de catéter central de inserción periférica por enfermeras en una unidad de cuidados intensivos pediátrica y neonatal. Método: Investigación cuantitativa, exploratoria-descriptiva, del tipo estudio de caso único, cuya muestra se constituyó de la observación no participante de 101 pasos de catéter central de inserción periférica. El costo se calculó multiplicando el tiempo (cronometrado) de los profesionales de enfermería, participantes en el procedimiento, por el costo unitario de mano de obra directa, sumándose al costo de materiales/medicamentos/soluciones. Resultados: El costo directo medio del procedimiento correspondió a US$ 326,95 (desviación estándar = US$ 84,47), variando entre US$ 99,03 y US$ 530,71, con mediana de US$ 326,17, habiendo sido impactados por los costos con material y mano de obra directa de los enfermeros ejecutantes. Conclusión: La medición del costo directo medio del paso del catéter central de inserción periférica confirió visibilidad financiera a los insumos consumidos, indicando posibilidades de intervención pretendiendo incrementar su eficiencia alocativa.

RESUMO Objetivo: Mensurar o custo direto médio da passagem de cateter central de inserção periférica, por enfermeiros, em uma unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica e neonatal. Método: Pesquisa quantitativa, exploratório-descritiva, do tipo estudo de caso único, cuja amostra se constituiu da observação não participante de 101 passagens de cateter central de inserção periférica. O custo foi calculado multiplicando-se o tempo (cronometrado) despendido por profissionais de enfermagem, participantes do procedimento, pelo custo unitário da mão de obra direta, somando-se ao custo dos materiais/medicamentos/soluções. Resultados: O custo direto médio do procedimento correspondeu a US$326.95 (desvio-padrão = US$ 84.47), variando entre US$99.03 e US$530.71, com mediana de US$326.17; tendo sido impactado pelos custos com material e mão de obra direta dos enfermeiros executantes. Conclusão: A mensuração do custo direto médio da passagem de cateter central de inserção periférica conferiu visibilidade financeira aos insumos consumidos, indicando possibilidades de intervenção visando o incremento da sua eficiência alocativa.

Perioperative application of midline catheter and PICC in Patients with gastrointestinal tumors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the application value of midline catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in patients with gastrointestinal tumors during the perioperative period. METHODS: 487 patients with gastrointestinal tumors admitted to Qingdao Municipal Hospital from August 2016 to September 2018 were selected and retrospectively analyzed. 279 patients treated with midline catheters during the treatment were regarded as the study group, and another 208 patients treated with PICC were regarded as the control group. The incidence of perioperative adverse reactions, the cost of daily catheter maintenance and the the total cost of catheter indwelling were compared between the two groups. Meanwhile, each patient was investigated for treatment satisfaction at the time of discharge. RESULTS: The total incidence of adverse reactions in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p=0.0001). The catheter indwelling duration in the study group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (p<0.001). The 24-h drainage volume in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p<0.001). The average cost of daily maintenance and total cost of catheter indwelling in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p<0.001). The satisfaction rate in the study group (69.53%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (51.92%) (p<0.001). The dissatisfaction rate in the study group (3.23%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (15.38%) (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with PICC, the perioperative application of midline catheter in patients with gastrointestinal tumors can effectively reduce catheter-related adverse reactions, with higher medical economic benefits and satisfaction rate, and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Successful percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair is significantly cheaper than femoral cutdown in a prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Because of its minimally invasive nature, percutaneous femoral access for endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) is currently undergoing rapid popularization. Compared with surgical cutdown for femoral access (cEVAR), it offers the advantage of faster recovery after surgery as well as a reduction in wound complications. Despite proposed advantages, the method is largely considered uneconomical because of its reliance on costly closure devices. METHODS: There were 50 patients undergoing EVAR who were enrolled in this randomized prospective single-center trial. Each patient randomly received percutaneous access in one groin and surgical access in the other. The primary end points were access duration and cost. Secondary end points were wound complications and the postoperative pain levels. RESULTS: Surgery was performed per protocol in 44 patients. Mean access times for pEVAR and cEVAR were 11.5 ± 3.4 minutes and 24.8 ± 12.1 minutes (P < .001), respectively. Total access costs were €559.65 ± €112.69 for pEVAR and €674.85 ± €289.55 for cEVAR (P = .016). Eight complications in six patients were attributed to cutdown, none to pEVAR (P = .02). The percutaneously accessed groin was significantly less painful at day 1 and day 5 after surgery (P < .001). An intention-to-treat analysis (N = 50 patients) included six cases of pEVAR conversion due to technical failure in three patients (6%) and change of the operative strategy in another three patients (eg, aortouni-iliac stent graft followed by crossover bypass). The intention-to-treat analysis showed shorter mean overall access time for pEVAR (pEVAR, 14.65 ± 10.20 minutes; cEVAR, 25.12 ± 11.77 minutes; P < .001) and no cost difference between the two methods (pEVAR, €651.29 ± €313.49; cEVAR, €625.53 ± €238.29; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm proposed potential benefits attributable to the minimally invasive nature of pEVAR while demonstrating cost-effectiveness despite the additional cost of closure devices. Taking into account pEVAR failures still does not increase pEVAR costs over cEVAR. Further considering reduced postoperative pain and wound complications, the technique deserves consideration in suitable patients.

Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy for Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis represents (UEDVT) 2-3% of all deep vein thrombosis. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) was replaced largely by pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PMT) in our institution. In this study we compared the immediate and 1-year results as well as the total hospital costs between CDT and PMT in the treatment of UEDVT. METHODS: From 2006 to 2013, 55 patients with UEDVT were treated with either CDT or PMT at Helsinki University Hospital. Of them, 43 underwent thoracoscopic rib resection later to relieve phlebography-confirmed vein compression. This patient cohort was prospectively followed up with repeated phlebographies. CDT was performed to 24 patients, and 19 had PMT with a Trellis™ device. Clinical evaluation and vein patency assessment were performed with either phlebography or ultrasound 1 year after the thrombolysis. Primary outcomes were immediate technical success, 1-year vein patency, and costs of the initial treatment. RESULTS: The immediate overall technical success rate, defined as recanalization of the occluded vein and removal of the fresh thrombus, was 91.7% in the CDT group and 100% in the PMT group (n.s.). The median thrombolytic time was significantly longer in CDT patients than that in PMT patients (21.1 vs. 0.33 hr, P < 0.00001). There were no procedure-related complications. The 1-year primary assisted patency rate was similar in both the groups (91.7% and 94.7%). There were no recurrences of clinical DVT. The hospital costs for the acute period were significantly lower in the PMT group than those in the CDT group (medians: 11,476 € and 5,975 € in the CDT and PMT groups, respectively [P < 0.00001]). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical results of the treatment of UEDVT with CDT or PMT were similar. However, PMT required shorter hospital stay and less intensive surveillance, leading to lower total costs.

Evaluating safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of PICC securement by subcutaneously anchored stabilization device.

PURPOSE: In recent years, a large variety of medical devices has become available. Every device must be efficient, safe and cost effective, but it is not enough to use it properly without considering the environment in which it will be employed. We applied this kind of analysis to subcutaneously anchored sutureless devices (SAS). METHODS: This is a one-center prospective observational study on safety, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an SAS device (SecurAcath, Interrad) for securement of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in 30 adult cancer patients with treatment expected to be >60 days. RESULTS: During 4963 catheter days and after 709 dressing changes (documented by 373 pictures), the use of SAS was associated with no episode of PICC dislodgement and a lower incidence of complications if compared to traditional securement devices. Insertion, management and removal of SAS were not associated with an increased pain perception by the patients. Cost effectiveness was particularly evident for long dwelling PICCs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that SAS is a highly effective and cost-effective method for securement of medium- to long-term PICCs with expected duration longer than 30 days. The introduction of SAS had a positive impact on our healthcare organization.

Cost analysis of iliac stenting performed in the operating room and the catheterization lab: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Iliac arterial stenting is performed both in the operating room (OR) and the catheterization lab (CL). To date, no analysis has compared resource utilization between these locations. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 105) treated at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients included adults with chronic, symptomatic iliac artery stenosis with a minimum Rutherford classification (RC) of 3, treated with stents. Exclusion criteria were prior stenting, acute ischemia, or major concomitant procedures. Immediate and two-year outcomes were observed. Patient demographics, perioperative details, physician billings, and hospital costs were recorded. Multivariable regression was used to adjust costs by patient and perioperative cost drivers. RESULTS: Fifty-one procedures (49%) were performed in the OR and 54 (51%) in the CL. Mean age was 57, and 44% were female. Severe cases were more often performed in the OR (RC ≥ 4; 42% vs. 11%, P < 0.001) and were associated with increased total costs (P < 0.01). OR procedures more often utilized additional stents (stents ≥ 2; 61% vs. 46%, P = 0.214), thrombolysis (12% vs. 0%, P = 0.011), cut-down approach (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.052), and general anesthesia (80% vs. 0%, P < 0.001): these were all associated with increased costs (P < 0.05). After multivariable regression, location was not a predictor of procedure room or total costs but was associated with increased professional fees. Same-stay (5%) and post-discharge reintervention (33%) did not vary by location. CONCLUSIONS: The OR was associated with increased length of stay, more ICU admissions, and increased total costs. However, OR patients had more severe disease and therefore often required more aggressive intervention. After controlling for these differences, procedure venue per se was not associated with increased costs, but OR cases incurred increased professional fees due to dual-provider charges. Given the similar clinical results between venues, it seems reasonable to perform most stenting in the CL or utilize conscious sedation in the OR.

[The assessment of the effectiveness of long vs standard-length catheters in reducing complications: a randomized controlled trial]. / Valutazione dell'efficacia dei dispositivi venosi periferici a cannula lunga vs quelli di lunghezza standard nella riduzione delle complicanze: studio clinico randomizzato controllato.

INTRODUCTION: From 30 to 80% of hospitalized patients is inserted a peripheral venous catheter (PVC). The PVC may be associated to several infective and non infective complications. AIMS: To assess whether a long-length vs standard-length PCV reduces the incidence of CRCs; to assess the patients' preferences and costs. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial on 211 patients (339 cannulas) admitted to an emergency medical and surgical wards. Patients were included if >18 years and prescribed a PVC. After the randomization the PVC were inspected daily, until removal. RESULTS: 186 complications occurred with the standard CVPs vs 16 with the midline, per 1000 catheter days; 47 phlebitis were observed in patients with standard PVCs vs none in those with midline; also infiltrations (66 vs 2 per 1000 catheter days), asymptomatic thromboses (34 vs 7 per 1000 catheter days), occlusions and accidental removals were greatly reduced. The higher cost of midline is counterbalanced by the complications prevented. In addition midline patients referred less limitations (96% vs 50.7%) and an higher satisfaction (91.9% vs 53.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The midline catheters radically reduce PVC associated complications, are preferred by patients and the higher costs should be weighted against the complications avoided.

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).

Editor's choice. A randomized controlled trial of the fascia suture technique compared with a suture-mediated closure device for femoral arterial closure after endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate whether the fascia suture technique (FST) can reduce access closure time and procedural costs compared with the Prostar technique (Prostar) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair and to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of both techniques. METHODS: In this two center trial, 100 patients were randomized to access closure by either FST or Prostar between June 2006 and December 2009. The primary endpoint was access closure time. Secondary outcome measures included access related costs and evaluation of the short- and mid-term complications. Evaluation was performed peri- and post-operatively, at discharge, at 30 days and at 6 months follow up. RESULTS: The median access closure time was 12.4 minutes for FST and 19.9 minutes for Prostar (p < .001). Prostar required a 54% greater procedure time than FST, mean ratio 1.54 (95% CI 1.25-1.90, p < .001) according to regression analysis. Adjusted for operator experience the mean ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 1.09-1.55, p = .005) and for patient body mass index 1.59 (95% CI 1.28-1.96, p < .001). The technical failure rate for operators at proficiency level was 5% (2/40) compared with 28% (17/59) for those at the basic level (p = .003). The proficiency level group had a technical failure rate of 4% (1/26) for FST and 7% (1/14) for Prostar, p = 1.00, while corresponding rates for the basic level group were 27% (6/22) for FST and 30% (11/37) for Prostar (p = .84). There was a significant difference in cost in favor of FST, with a median difference of €800 (95% CI 710-927, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In aortic endovascular repair FST is a faster and cheaper technique than the Prostar technique.

Initial transcatheter thrombolysis for acute superior mesenteric venous thrombosis.

AIM: To determine the optimal initial treatment modality for acute superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (ASMVT) in patients with circumscribed peritonitis. METHODS: A retrospective review was made of the Vascular Surgery Department's medical records to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years old) presenting with circumscribed peritonitis and diagnosed with ASMVT by imaging or endoscopic examination. Patients were selected from the time period between October 2009 and October 2012 to assess the overall performance of a new first-line treatment policy implemented in May 2011 for patients with circumscribed peritonitis, which recommends transcatheter thrombolysis with local anticoagulation and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy. Of the 25 patients selected for study inclusion, 12 had undergone emergency surgical exploration (group 1) and 13 had undergone the initial catheter-directed thrombolysis (group 2). Data extracted from each patient's records for statistical analyses included method of diagnosis, symptoms, etiology and risk factors, thrombus location, initial management, morbidity, mortality, duration and total cost of hospitalization (in Renminbi, RMB), secondary operation, total length of bowel resection, duration of and findings in follow-up, and death/survival. RESULTS: The two treatment groups showed similar rates of morbidity, 30-d mortality, and 1-year survival, as well as similar demographic characteristics, etiology or risk factors, computed tomography characteristics, symptoms, findings of blood testing at admission, complications, secondary operations, and follow-up outcomes. In contrast, the patients who received the initial non-operative treatment of transcatheter thrombolysis had significantly shorter durations of admission to symptom elimination (group 1: 18.25 ± 7.69 d vs group 2: 7.23 ± 2.42 d) and hospital stay (43.00 ± 13.77 d vs 20.46 ± 6.59 d), and early enteral or oral nutrition restoration (20.50 ± 5.13 d vs 8.92 ± 1.89 d), as well as significantly less total length of bowel resection (170.83 ± 61.27 cm vs 29.23 ± 50.24 cm) and lower total cost (200020.4 ± 91505.62 RMB vs 72785.6 ± 21828.16 RMB) (P < 0.05 for all). Statistical analyses suggested that initial transcatheter thrombolysis is correlated with quicker resolution of the thrombus, earlier improvement of symptoms, stimulation of collateral vessel development, reversal of intestinal ischemia, receipt of localizing bowel resection to prevent short bowel syndrome, shorter hospitalization, and lower overall cost of treatment. CONCLUSION: For ASMVT patients with circumscribed peritonitis, early diagnosis is key to survival, and non-operative transcatheter thrombolysis is feasible and effective as an initial treatment.

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.

A newly designed total implantable venous access device in rats for research with high efficiency and low cost.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we introduced a newly designed totally implantable device for long-term vascular access in rats and compared its efficacy, related complications, and cost-effectiveness with conventional exteriorized jugular vein catheters. METHODS: Forty adult male Sprague-Dawley rats, weighing 250-300 g, were equally divided into two groups (I and II) and all underwent jugular vein catheterization surgery. The totally implanted device was used in group I and conventional exteriorized catheters were used in group II. The functionality of each catheter was checked every 3 d and evaluation included vascular accessibility, patency, and infection. The weight of the animal and microbial culture from the wound and tube were also monitored. We analyzed the cause of vascular access failure and complications, both mechanical and infectious, and compared related variables. RESULTS: The proportions of 9-d patency and 30-d patency in group I were 90% (18/20) and 75% (15/20), respectively, and in group II 80% (16/20) and 35% (7/20), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in 30-d patency. The rats in group II were more liable to involve vascular access failure because of catheter dislodgment and had a higher infection rate (P = 0.001). Daily body weight gain was also greater in group I than in group II (2.46 ± 0.59 g/d versus 1.84 ± 0.96 g/d; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This newly designed and totally implanted device substantially increases the success rate of long-term venous access compared with conventional methods. It reinforces the merits of the subcutaneous port and a tethered swivel system and overall has better performance and reliability. Furthermore, given its low cost and the high level of effectiveness offered, this technology could be a powerful tool to be used in future translational medicine research, especially in cases of long-term intravascular administration.

Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The use of central venous lines carries a significant risk for serious complications and high economic costs. Lately, the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has gained in popularity due to presumed advantages over other central venous lines. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify scientific evidence justifying the use of PICC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The literature review was performed according to the principles of Cochrane Collaboration. The electronic literature search included common databases up to March 2011. Only those studies rated as high or moderate quality were used for grading of evidence and conclusions. RESULTS: The search resulted in 827 abstracts, 48 articles were read in full text, and 11 met the inclusion criteria. None of the articles was classified as high quality and two had moderate quality. The results of these two studies indicate that PICC increases the risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but decreases the risk for catheter occlusion. The quality of scientific evidence behind these conclusions, however, was limited. Due to the lack of studies with sufficiently high quality, questions such as early complications, patient satisfaction and costs could not be answered. DISCUSSION: We conclude that although PICCs are frequently used in oncology, scientific evidence supporting any advantage or disadvantage of PICC when comparing PICC with traditional central venous lines is limited, apart from a tendency towards increased risk for DVT and a decreased risk for catheter occlusion with PICC.