An Improvised Cost-Effective Repair Technique for Management of Broken Luer Connections of Tunneled Dialysis Catheter and Salvage Existing Catheter.

Mechanical problems like break or crack in Luer connectors or hubs, clamps, and tubings are common non-infectious complications of tunneled dialysis catheters (TDC), which may lead to other TDC complications and the need to insert a new catheter. These can be tackled using TDC repair kits or spare parts, which are often not available, resulting in the insertion of a new TDC that increases morbidity, TDC-related procedures, and healthcare costs. We discuss two cases of broken Luer connections of TDC, which were managed by exchanging the broken Luer connector of TDC with the similar Luer connector of a temporary dialysis catheter. Both the repaired TDCs are thereafter functioning well. This improvised technique provides an easy, effective, long-lasting option that salvages the existing TDC and reduces the cost factor.

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.

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.

Repair of central venous access devices in intestinal failure patients is safe and cost-effective: A retrospective single centre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic intestinal failure (IF) require home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Central venous access is needed for prolonged use of PN, usually via a long term central venous access device (CVAD). Post insertion there may be mechanical complications with a CVAD such as catheter rupture or tear. Repair of damaged CVADs is possible to avoid risks associated with catheter replacement in patients with IF. However, catheter related blood stream infections (CRBSI) are a concern when CVAD's are accessed or manipulated. AIMS: To investigate the success of repair of CVADs in patients with IF on HPN, related to repair longevity and incidence of CRBSI following repair. METHOD: Nutrition team records of CVAD repairs carried out in patients with IF were reviewed retrospectively for the period April 2015 to March 2019. RESULTS: Nutrition Clinical Nurse Specialists carried out 38 repairs in 27 patients. Male n = 5, female n = 22; mean age 55 years. Catheter longevity before first repair (n = 27): median 851 days, IQR 137-1484 days. 30/38 (78.9%) of repairs were successful lasting ≥30days. Hospital admission was avoided in 76% of cases. 4 patients in the failed repair group underwent catheter re-insertion where 4 had a further, subsequently successful, repair, an overall success rate of 89.4% (34/38). 30-day CRBSI rate was 0.09/1000 catheter days in repaired catheters. In comparing costs, there is a potential cost saving of 2766GBP for repair compared to replacement of damaged CVADs. CONCLUSION: Repair of tunnelled CVADs in patients with IF is successful and safe with no increased risk of CRBSI. Significant cost savings may be made.

Comparison between sedation room and operating room in central venous catheter positioning in children.

BACKGROUND: Placement of central venous access devices is a clinical procedure associated with some risk of adverse events and with a relevant cost. Careful choice of the device, appropriate insertion technique, and proper management of the device are well-known strategies commonly adopted to achieve an optimal clinical result. However, the environment where the procedure takes place may have an impact on the overall outcome in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis on pediatric patients scheduled for a major neurosurgical operation, who required a central venous access device in the perioperative period. We divided the patients in two groups: in group A the central venous access device was inserted in the operating room, while in group B the central venous access device was inserted in the sedation room of our Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. We compared the two groups in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We analyzed 47 central venous access devices in 42 children. There were no insertion-related complications. Only one catheter-related bloodstream infection was recorded, in group A. However, the costs related to central venous access device insertion were quite different: €330-€540 in group A versus €105-€135 in group B. CONCLUSION: In the pediatric patient candidate to a major neurosurgical operation, preoperative insertion of the central venous access device in the sedation room rather than in the operating room is less expensive and equally safe.

Transdiaphragmatic tunneled Broviac catheters: Cost-effective perioperative central venous access in infants undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Infants undergoing congenital heart surgery require central venous lines which can be achieved by various combinations of transthoracic lines, percutaneous-indwelling central catheters and tunneled Broviac catheters. Transthoracic lines are removed by protocol prior to cardiac intensive care unit discharge (risk of bleeding), at which time percutaneous-indwelling central catheters are placed. Transdiaphragmatic tunneled Broviac catheters placed at the time of sternotomy, remain in place until hospital discharge, when they are safely removed at bedside. We characterized actual cost profiles associated with strategies that do versus do not include tunneled Broviac catheters. METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2016, we identified a study population of 220 consecutive patients under 1 year of age undergoing congenital heart surgery. Cost data were acquired from our electronic patient system interface database and office of finance. Our cohort was divided into 2 groups, tunneled Broviac catheter and nontunneled Broviac catheter. We calculated the total cost associated with each groups' central venous lines, propensity matched, and used the Mann-Whitney U test to analyze the results. RESULTS: Eighty-three (37.7%) of the 220 patients had tunneled Broviac catheters. The tunneled Broviac catheter group had 4 percutaneous-indwelling central catheter insertions and 6 radiological interventions while the nontunneled Broviac catheter group had 90 percutaneous-indwelling central catheters and 203 radiologic interventions. After propensity score matching, both groups were reduced to 82 patients and sum, median and interquartile range cost for tunneled Broviac catheters and nontunneled Broviac catheters was $17,351.84, $159.76 (128-159.76) versus $72,809.32, $1277.26 (31.76-1277.26), P < .02 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tunneled Broviac catheters, placed routinely at cardiac surgery, incur lower costs than the conventional combination of transthoracic lines and percutaneous-indwelling central catheters. The cost-effectiveness is achieved by reducing the number of percutaneous-indwelling central catheters and associated radiologic interventions.

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.

Jury verdicts and outcomes of malpractice cases involving arteriovenous hemodialysis access.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze malpractice cases involving hemodialysis access to prevent future litigation and improve physician education. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the WESTLAW database from 1 January 2005 to 1 January 2015 were reviewed. The search terms "hemodialysis," "dialysis," "graft," "fistula," "AVG," "AVF," "arteriovenous," "catheter," "permacatheter," and "shiley" were used to compile data on the demographics of the defendant, plaintiff, allegation, complication, and verdict. RESULTS: Sixty-six cases involving the litigation pertaining to hemodialysis catheter, arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) were obtained. Of these, 55% involved catheter-based hemodialysis access, 18% involved AVF, and 27% involved AVG. The most frequent physician defendants were vascular surgeons (36%), internists (14%), nephrologists (14%), general surgeons (9%), and interventional radiologists (6%). Of the patients, 38% involved were male and the average patient age was 56.3 (standard deviation (SD) = 20.1) years. Region of injury was 50% in the neck or chest, 42% in the arm, and 8% in the groin. Injury was listed as death in 79% of cases. Of the deaths, 95% involved bleeding at some point in the chain of events. The most common claims related to the cases were failure to perform the surgery or procedure safely (44%), failure to diagnose and treat in a timely manner (30%), and negligent hemodialysis treatment (11%). The most common complications cited were hemorrhage (62%), loss of function of limb (15%), and ischemia due to steal syndrome (11%). A total of 26 cases (39%) were found for the plaintiff or settled. The median award was US$463,000 with a mean of US$985,299 (SD = US$1,314,557). CONCLUSION: While popular opinion may indicate that steal syndrome is a commonly litigated complication, our data reveal that the most common injury litigated is death which may frequently be the result of a hemorrhagic episode. In addition to hemorrhage, the remaining most common complications included steal syndrome and loss of limb function. Therefore, steps to better prevent, diagnose and treat bleeding, nerve injury, and steal syndrome in a timely manner are critical to preventing hemodialysis-access-associated litigation.

Hemodialysis access cost comparisons among incident tunneled catheter patients.

BACKGROUND: Arteriovenous fistula is the ideal hemodialysis access, but most patients start with tunneled dialysis catheter. Arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft surgery may reduce tunneled dialysis catheter use and also increase procedural expenses. We compared Medicare costs associated with arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and tunneled dialysis catheter. METHODS: Using the US Renal Data System, we identified incident hemodialysis patients in 2008 who started with tunneled dialysis catheter, survived at least 90 days, and had adequate Medicare records for analysis. We followed them until death or end of 2011; access modality was based on billing evidence of arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft creation. We assumed patients without such records remained with tunneled dialysis catheter. We generated multivariate linear regression models predicting Medicare expenditures, censoring costs when patients died; we included all payments to physicians and institutions. We also created algorithms to identify access-related costs. RESULTS: There were 113,505 patients in the US Renal Data System who started hemodialysis in 2008, of whom 51,002 Medicare patients met inclusion criteria. Of that group, 41,532 (81%) began with tunneled dialysis catheter; 27,064 patients were in the final analysis file. In the first 90 days after hemodialysis initiation, 6100 (22.5%) received arteriovenous fistula, 1813 (6.7%) arteriovenous graft, and 19,151 (70.8%) stayed with tunneled dialysis catheter. Annualized access costs by modality were tunneled dialysis catheter US$13,625 (95% confidence interval: US$13,426-US$13,285); arteriovenous fistula US$16,864 (95% confidence interval: US$16,533-US$17,194); and arteriovenous graft US$20,961 (95% confidence interval: US$20,967-US$21,654; p < .001). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated that staying with tunneled dialysis catheter had lowest access-related costs, arteriovenous fistula was intermediate, and those who underwent arteriovenous graft surgery were highest (p < .021). Access type was not significantly associated with total costs. Additional arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft creation (US$3525 and US$3804 per access per year, respectively) and open and endovascular access-related interventions (US$3102 and US$3569 per procedure per year, respectively; all p < .001) were important predictors of increased cost. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients starting hemodialysis with tunneled dialysis catheter, continued tunneled dialysis catheter use is associated with lowest access-related cost. Both endovascular and open interventions are associated with significant additional costs. Further investigation is warranted to develop efficient patient-centered strategies for hemodialysis access.

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.

[Ultrasound-guided umbilical venous catheterisation: A cost-effectiveness analysis]. / Cateterización venosa umbilical guiada por ultrasonografía: un análisis de coste-efectividad.

INTRODUCTION: Although the use of ultrasound for the insertion of central catheters has proven to be cost-effective in adults, it is not known if this is the case in the neonatal population. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided umbilical venous catheterisation with conventional catheterisation in a neonatal intensive care unit of a Public University Hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on newborns that required an umbilical venous catheter before completing their first 24hours of extra-uterine life. Two retrospective cohorts were formed, including one with ultrasound-guided catheterisation and the other with conventional catheterisation. The effectiveness was measured using 2 variables: placement of ideal position and insertion without complications. The cost of human and material resources (consumable and non-consumable), the cost-effectiveness ratio, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated, as well as carrying out a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Catheter obstruction was more frequent in guided catheterisation than in conventional catheterisation (7.7% vs. 0%, p=.04) and catheter dysfunction was higher in the latter (79% vs. 3.8%, p<.0001). The cost-effectiveness ratio of the guided catheterisation was €153.9, and €484.6 for the conventional one. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €45.5. The sensitivity analysis showed a €2.6 increase in the cost-effectiveness ratio of the guided catheterisation and €47 in the conventional one. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ultrasound to guide umbilical catheterisation is more efficient than conventional catheterisation since, despite using more economic resources, it offers greater effectiveness.

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-effectiveness-analysis of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization compared with landmark method: a decision-analytic model.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization is a commonly used alternative to the conventional landmark method. Because from the German perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance is unclear, this study examined the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance versus the landmark method for adults undergoing a central venous catheterization. METHODS: A decision-tree based model was built to estimate the costs of averted catheter-related complications. Clinical data (e.g. arterial puncture, failed attempts) were obtained from a Cochrane review and a randomized controlled trial, whilst information about cost parameters were taken from a German hospital of maximum care. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To assess the parameter uncertainty, several sensitivity analyses were performed (deterministic, probabilistic and with regard to the model structure). RESULTS: Our analysis revealed that ultrasound guidance resulted in fewer complications per person (0.04 versus 0.17 for the landmark method) and was less expensive (€51 versus €230 for the landmark method). Results were robust to changes in the model parameters and in the model structure. Whilst our model population reflected approximately 49% of adults undergoing a central venous catheterization cannulation per year, structural sensitivity analyses (e.g. extending the study cohort to patients at higher baseline risk of complications, pediatric patients, or using real-time/indirect catheterization) indicated the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance for a broader spectrum of patients. The results should be interpreted by considering the assumptions (e.g. target population) and approximations (e.g. cost parameters) underpinning the model. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization averts more catheter-related complications and may save the resources of the German Statutory Health Insurance compared with landmark method.

Clinical experience of a subcutaneously anchored sutureless system for securing central venous catheters.

This article reports the results of three prospective clinical studies conducted in a university hospital regarding the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of a subcutaneously anchored sutureless system for securing central venous catheters. The results were favourable to the adoption of such a device, and the analysis of the data allowed the authors to define those categories of patients where the device should have the most benefit: neonates, children, non-compliant older patients with cognitive difficulties, patients with skin abnormalities that may reduce the effectiveness of a skin-adhesive sutureless securement system, patients who are candidates for having a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in place for more than 8 weeks, and any other category of patients with a recognised high risk of catheter dislodgement.

Placement of tunneled cuffed catheter for hemodialysis: Micropuncture kit versus Angiocath IV catheter.

INTRODUCTION: Tunneled cuffed catheters provide stable, instantaneous, long-term intravenous access for hemodialysis. Because catheterization is often performed in emergency situations, speed and accuracy are emphasized. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the Micropuncture kit with the standard 18-gauge Angiocath IV catheter for tunneled cuffed catheter insertion in the right jugular vein. From June 2016 to May 2017, 31 tunneled cuffed catheters were successfully inserted via the Micropuncture kit and another 31 via the Angiocath IV catheter. All patients underwent the same ultrasound-guided procedure performed by a single experienced interventionalist. Procedure time was the time from draping of the patient to the completion of povidone dressing after the catheterization. In our center, the Angio Lab nurse maintains records, including procedure time and method for every procedure. All patient records were retrospectively tracked through electronic medical record review. The primary outcome was procedure time and the secondary outcomes were complications and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the patients' demographic data between the two groups. However, procedure time was significantly shorter in the Angiocath group than in the Micropuncture group (12.4 ± 3.5 vs 17.6 ± 6.9 min, p = 0.001); there were no serious complications, such as hemorrhage, pneumothorax, or hematoma, in both groups. Moreover, cost-effectiveness was better in the Angiocath group than in the Micropuncture group (0.34 vs 52 US$, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using the Angiocath IV catheter can reduce procedure time and cost with no severe complications. Moreover, experienced practitioners can reduce the risk of complications when using Angiocath. There are several limitations to this study. First, it was retrospective; second, it was not randomized; and finally, it was conducted by only one experienced interventionalist.

Current status of dialysis and vascular access in Taiwan.

Due to the implementation of the National Health Insurance system in 1995, the number of patients receiving maintenance dialysis has increased rapidly. This contributed to Taiwan to be in an unfortunate position of possessing the highest prevalence of end-stage renal disease globally. Although the age-standardized incidence of end-stage renal disease gradually decreased to -1.1% in 2014, the huge economic burden that comes with dialysis is detrimental to the quality of dialysis treatment. To achieve a balance between economy and quality of care requires multidisciplinary cooperation. Through a variety of chronic kidney disease-related care projects, we have gradually reversed this situation and achieved good results. Further promotion of kidney transplantation and hospice care for terminal patients will improve the situation. With respect to vascular access, the "fistula first" policy is carried out and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is the mainstay of treatment to resolve vascular access dysfunction. The medical expenses for dialysis and vascular access management are both fully paid for by the National Health Insurance, and patients do not have to worry about the medical expenses. However, the statistics and vascular access monitoring are relatively insufficient in the past. The comprehensive integration of vascular access management into public policy related to kidney disease will complete the missing piece of the puzzle of overall care.

The Cost-effectiveness of Antimicrobial Lock Solutions for the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections.

Background: Antimicrobial lock solutions are a low-cost strategy that can reduce the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial locks for the prevention of CLABSI. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing antimicrobial lock solutions to heparin locks for the prevention of CLABSI in 3 settings: hemodialysis, cancer treatment, and home parenteral nutrition. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating CLABSIs prevented and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. Results: In probabilistic analysis, at a willingness to pay of $50000, antimicrobial lock solutions had a 96.24% chance of being cost-effective, compared with heparin locks in the hemodialysis setting, an 88.00% chance in the cancer treatment setting, and a 92.73% chance in the home parenteral nutrition setting. In base-case analysis, antimicrobial lock solutions resulted in savings of $68721.03 for the hemodialysis setting, $85061.41 for the cancer setting, and $78513.83 for the home parenteral nutrition setting per CLABSI episode prevented. Conclusions: In 3 distinct and clinically important settings (hemodialysis, cancer treatment, and home parenteral nutrition), antimicrobial lock solutions are an effective strategy for the prevention of CLABSI, and their use can result in significant healthcare savings.

Antithrombogenic peripherally inserted central catheters: overview of efficacy and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Thrombotic complications associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are common, as most synthetic materials when placed in the presence of serum often result in platelet activation, fibrin deposition, thrombotic occlusion, and potentially embolization. A current innovation focus has been the development of antithrombogenic catheter materials, including hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces. These are being incorporated into PICCs in an attempt to prevent the normal thrombotic cascade leading to patient harm. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on the laboratory efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antithrombogenic PICCs to prevent PICC-associated thrombosis, as well as their efficiency and safety. This synthesis was informed by a systematic identification of published and unpublished laboratory and clinical studies evaluating these technologies. EXPERT COMMENTARY: A range of PICCs have been developed with antithrombogenic claims, using varying technologies. However, to date, there is no peer-reviewed laboratory research describing the individual PICCs' effectiveness. Despite promising early clinical trials, adequately powered trials to establish efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of all of the individual products have not yet been undertaken.

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.