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.

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.

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.

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.

The Role of Health Insurance in Patient Reported Satisfaction with Bladder Management in Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Due to Spinal Cord Injury.

PURPOSE: Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction is a significant source of morbidity for individuals with spinal cord injury and is managed with a range of treatment options that differ in efficacy, tolerability and cost. The effect of insurance coverage on bladder management, symptoms and quality of life is not known. We hypothesized that private insurance is associated with fewer bladder symptoms and better quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of 1,226 surveys collected as part of the prospective Neurogenic Bladder Research Group SCI Registry. We included patients with complete insurance information, which was classified as private or public insurance. The relationship between insurance and bladder management, bladder symptoms and quality of life was modeled using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Spinal cord injury quality of life was measured by the Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score. RESULTS: We identified 654 privately insured and 572 publicly insured individuals. The demographics of these groups differed by race, education, prevalence of chronic pain and bladder management. Publicly insured patients were more likely to be treated with indwelling catheters or spontaneous voiding and less likely to take bladder medication compared to those with private insurance. On multivariate analysis insurance type was not associated with differences in bladder symptoms (total Neurogenic Bladder Symptom Score) or in urinary quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between insurance coverage and the type of bladder management used following spinal cord injury, as publicly insured patients are more likely to be treated with indwelling catheters. However, insurance status, controlling for bladder management, did not impact bladder symptoms or quality of life.

Minimally invasive and inexpensive percutaneous abscess drainage using an indwelling needle cannula.

PURPOSE: Abscess is still a formidable disease and requires adequate drainage. Moreover, drainage in the head and neck area needs cosmetic care, especially in the pediatric population. In this report, we introduce our method of percutaneous abscess drainage using an indwelling needle cannula. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten pediatric and five adult patients with cervical and/or facial abscess treated with this drainage method were retrospectively reviewed. Using an indwelling needle cannula (18-14 G Surflow®, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan), abscesses were penetrated under ultrasonic examination. Once purulent retention was identified, the inner metal needle was removed and the outer elastic needle was left and fixed. The outer needle was connected to the tube for continuous suction drainage for large abscess. RESULTS: The primary diseases of these abscesses were cervical abscess of dental origin (5), purulent lymphadenitis (3), pyriform sinus fistula (2) and subperiosteal abscess due to mastoiditis (2), circumorbital cellulitis (1), infection of Warthin's tumor (1), and unknown origin (1). The median (range) duration of drainage was 4 days (3-9 days). Abscesses were successfully treated, and no patients required additional incision for abscess drainage. No apparent scars after drainage were observed. CONCLUSION: This technique resembles the usual venous placement of an indwelling needle cannula and is thought to be familiar to physicians. Although simple and inexpensive, this drainage is safe, effective, and minimally invasive for the treatment of abscess.

Indwelling Pleural Catheter Drainage Strategy for Malignant Effusion: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Rationale: The likelihood of achieving pleurodesis after indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) placement for malignant pleural effusion varies with the specific drainage strategy used: symptom-guided drainage, daily drainage, or talc instillation through the IPC (IPC + talc). The relative cost-effectiveness of one strategy over the other is unknown.Objectives: We performed a decision tree model-based analysis to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of each IPC drainage strategy from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: We developed a decision tree model using theoretical event probability data derived from three randomized clinical trials and used 2019 Medicare reimbursement data for cost estimation. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over an analytical horizon of 6 months with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to measure the uncertainty surrounding base case estimates.Results: IPC + talc was a cost-effective alternative to symptom-guided drainage, with an ICER of $59,729/QALY. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that this strategy was favored in 54% of simulations. However, symptom-guided drainage was cost effective for pleurodesis rates >20% and for life expectancy <4 months. Daily drainage was not cost effective in any scenario, including for patients with nonexpandable lung, in whom it had an ICER of $2,474,612/QALY over symptom-guided drainage.Conclusions: For patients with malignant pleural effusion and an expandable lung, IPC + talc may be cost effective relative to symptom-guided drainage, although considerable uncertainty exists around this estimation. Daily IPC drainage is not a cost-effective strategy under any circumstance.

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.

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness, safety and cost reduction of long-term tunneled central venous catheter insertion in outpatients performed by an interventional nephrologist.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Outcomes and Costs Following Ommaya Placement with Thrombocytopenia Among U.S. Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Placement of Ommaya reservoirs for the administration of intrathecal chemotherapy may be complicated by comorbid thrombocytopenia among patients with hematologic or leptomeningeal disease. Aggregated data on risks of Ommaya placement among thrombocytopenic patients are lacking. This study assesses complications, revision rates, and costs associated with Ommaya placement among patients with thrombocytopenia in a large population sample. METHODS: Using a national administrative database, this retrospective study identifies a cohort of adult patients with cancer who underwent Ommaya placement between 2007 and 2016. Preoperative thrombocytopenia was defined as diagnosis of secondary thrombocytopenia, bleeding event, procedure to control bleeding, or platelet transfusion, within 30 days before index admission. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess costs, 30-day complications, readmissions, and revisions among patients with and without preoperative thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 1652 patients, of whom 29.3% met criteria for preoperative thrombocytopenia. In-hospital mortality rates were 7.7% among patients thrombocytopenia with versus 1.2% among patients without thrombocytopenia (P < 0.001). Preoperative thrombocytopenia was associated with 14.5 times greater hazard of intracranial hemorrhage within 30 days following Ommaya placement, occurring in 25.6% versus 2.0% of patients with and without thrombocytopenia, respectively (P < 0.014). Revision rates did not differ significantly between patients with and without thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia was associated with longer length of stay (7.4 vs. 13.9 days, P < 0.001) and additional $10,000 per patient in costs of index hospitalization (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date documenting costs and complication rates of Ommaya placement in patients with and without thrombocytopenia.

Intrathecal Baclofen Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Improved Outcomes and Reduced Costs Through Identification of Catheter Malfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Two patients previously implanted with intrathecal Baclofen (ITB) pumps for management of intractable spasticity due to multiple sclerosis (MS) were referred to our center for ongoing management of their spasticity. Initial evaluation of these patients revealed high levels of spasticity in the presence of ITB doses 10 times the average daily dose of our other MS patients. CLINICAL FACTS: High doses of ITB required frequent clinical visits and result in high drug and procedure costs. Both patients' daily doses were greater than 1000 mcg/day resulting in clinical visits every 1-2 months with drug and procedure costs ranging from 16 to 23 thousand dollars annually based on Medicare national average pricing for physician's office. Of the 59 MS patients receiving ITB therapy at our institution, the mean, median, and mode daily doses for ITB are 184, 115, and 159 mcg/day, respectively. The high ITB doses in these patients and poor spasticity control raised suspicion for pump/catheter malfunction and prompted immediate troubleshooting. FINDINGS: One patient's catheter was found to be disconnected from the pump and the other's catheter tip was outside the intrathecal space. In both cases, the patients were not receiving the therapy. After pump/catheter replacement, both patients received excellent clinical benefits from ITB at significantly lower daily doses. This reduction in dose resulted in decreased frequency of medication refills (twice annually) which resulted in decreased cost of care (12-19 thousand dollars savings annually per patient). DISCUSSION: These cases illustrate the need for early ITB pump troubleshooting to identify catheter problems, improve efficacy, and avoid unnecessary healthcare costs.

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.

Placement of Ommaya Reservoirs Using Electromagnetic Neuronavigation and Neuroendoscopy: A Retrospective Study with Cost-Benefit Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Placement of intraventricular catheters in oncology patients is associated with high complication rates. Placing Ommaya reservoirs with the zero-error precision protocol (ZEPP), a combination of neuronavigation (AxiEM stereotactic navigation) and direct verification of catheter tip placement with a flexible neuroendoscope, is associated with decreased complication rates as a result of increased catheter placement accuracy. However, the ZEPP costs more than traditional methods of catheter placement, and the question of whether this increased accuracy with the ZEPP is cost-effective is unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of 50 consecutive ommaya reservoir patient placements between 2010 and 2017. Twenty-five ventricular catheters were placed using the ZEPP protocol, and 25 ventricular catheters were placed using only AxiEM stealth navigation. Postoperative catheter accuracy and complication rates were assessed. A cost-benefit analysis was then conducted to determine if the overall cost for placing Ommaya reservoirs with the ZEPP was effective compared with the alternative method of using neuronavigation alone. RESULTS: In the non-ZEPP cohort, 10 of 25 catheters were placed within the optimal location compared with 25 of 25 catheters placed in the ZEPP cohort. Three complications occurred in the non-ZEPP cohort: 2 malpositioned catheters required surgical revision and 1 catheter-related hemorrhage resulted in a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit. No complications occurred in the ZEPP cohort. A cost-benefit analysis showed $4784 savings per patient with ZEPP utilization because of the high complication-associated costs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ZEPP for verifying ventricular catheter placement in Ommaya reservoirs improved catheter tip accuracy, resulted in lower complication rates, and was more cost-effective when compared with the non-ZEPP cohort, which used only neuronavigation. The ZEPP can be used for ventricular shunt catheter placement to decrease complications and verify catheter tip accuracy in Ommaya or standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts.

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.

Short Peripheral Catheter Quality and Economics: The Intravenous Quotient.

Peripheral intravenous therapy is an established therapy with known complications and failures. The burden of the cost of unsuccessful short peripheral catheter (SPC) placement and maintenance is not always clearly identified. This often-obscured cost of poor quality needs to be defined and addressed. The scope of the problem is defined here, and a metric that can be applied to measure the magnitude of the problem and identify targets for focused improvement initiatives that would improve the quality of infusion therapy using SPCs is proposed.