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.

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.

Impacts of age, diabetes, gender, and access type on costs associated with vascular access among Chinese patients on hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the impacts of age, diabetes, gender, and access type on vascular access (VA) associated costs among Chinese hemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients whose first permanent VA was created at the West China Hospital. Clinical characteristics, maturation, intervention, utilization, and exchange of every VA, as well as VA-related infection were collected. The study period for each patient was from HD initiation to the last follow-up. VA-related costs, including those for placement and intervention procedures, were calculated according to the standards set in 2019 for Chinese tertiary hospitals. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were conducted for comparisons between groups. RESULTS: A total of 358 Chinese HD patients experienced functionally 143 arteriovenous fistula (AVF), 22 arteriovenous graft (AVG), and 439 tunneled cuffed central venous catheter (tcCVC) during a median study period of 26 (IQR 13-44) months, of which 42.5% used more than one permanent VA. The median annual VA-related cost in the groups of age >75 years and ⩽75 years, diabetes and non-diabetes, male and female, was $525 and $397 (p = 0.016), $459 and $462 (p = 0.64), $476 and $445 (p = 0.94), respectively. The median monthly costs for AVF ($18), AVG ($289), and tcCVC ($37) were significantly different. CONCLUSION: HD patients aged >75 years had significantly higher annual VA-related costs. However, the annual VA-related costs did not differ across the diabetes groups or the gender groups. AVF was the most cost-effective permanent VA type in China, partly due to the inexpensive materials used compared to AVG or tcCVC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies preventing late-onset infection in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVE: Developing a model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of interventions preventing late-onset infection (LOI) in preterm infants and applying it to the evaluation of anti-microbial impregnated peripherally inserted central catheters (AM-PICCs) compared with standard PICCs (S-PICCs). DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from the Preventing infection using Antimicrobial Impregnated Long Lines (PREVAIL) randomised controlled trial linked to routine healthcare data, supplemented with published literature. The model assumes that LOI increases the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units in the UK National Health Service (NHS). PATIENTS: Infants born ≤32 weeks gestational age, requiring a 1 French gauge PICC. INTERVENTIONS: AM-PICC and S-PICC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs over the infants' expected lifetime. RESULTS: Severe NDI reduces life expectancy by 14.79 (95% CI 4.43 to 26.68; undiscounted) years, 10.63 (95% CI 7.74 to 14.02; discounted) QALYs and costs £19 057 (95% CI £14 197; £24697; discounted) to the NHS. If LOI causes NDI, the maximum acquisition price of an intervention reducing LOI risk by 5% is £120. AM-PICCs increase costs (£54.85 (95% CI £25.95 to £89.12)) but have negligible impact on health outcomes (-0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.04) QALYs), compared with S-PICCs. The NHS can invest up to £2.4 million in research to confirm that AM-PICCs are not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The model quantifies health losses and additional healthcare costs caused by NDI and LOI during neonatal care. Given these consequences, interventions preventing LOI, even by a small extent, can be cost-effective. AM-PICCs, being less effective and more costly than S-PICC, are not likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03260517.

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

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

Vascular Access for Hemodialysis Patients: New Data Should Guide Decision Making.

This commentary critically examines key assumptions and recommendations in the 2006 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative vascular access guidelines, and argues that several are not relevant to the contemporary United States hemodialysis population. First, the guidelines prefer arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over arteriovenous grafts (AVGs), on the basis of their superior secondary survival and lower frequency of interventions and infections. However, intent-to-treat analyses that incorporate the higher primary failure of AVFs, demonstrate equivalent secondary survival of both access types. Moreover, the lower rate of AVF versus AVG infections is counterbalanced by the higher rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections before AVF maturation. In addition, AVFs with assisted maturation (interventions before successful AVF use), which account for about 50% of new AVFs, are associated with inferior secondary patency compared with AVGs without intervention before successful use. Second, the guidelines posit lower access management costs for AVFs than AVGs. However, in patients who undergo AVF or AVG placement after starting dialysis with a central venous catheter (CVC), the overall cost of access management is actually higher in patients receiving an AVF. Third, the guidelines prefer forearm over upper arm AVFs. However, published data demonstrate superior maturation of upper arm versus forearm AVFs, likely explaining the progressive increase in upper arm AVFs in the United States. Fourth, AVFs are thought to fail primarily because of aggressive juxta-anastomotic stenosis. However, recent evidence suggests that many AVFs mature despite neointimal hyperplasia, and that suboptimal arterial vasodilation may be an equally important contributor to AVF nonmaturation. Finally, CVC use is believed to result in excess mortality in patients on hemodialysis. However, recent data suggest that CVC use is simply a surrogate marker of sicker patients who are more likely to die, rather than being a mediator of mortality.

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.

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.

Health Insurance in the First 3 Months of Hemodialysis and Early Vascular Access.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients without Medicare who develop ESKD in the United States become Medicare eligible by their fourth dialysis month. Patients without insurance may experience delays in obtaining arteriovenous fistulas or grafts before obtaining Medicare coverage. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used a national registry to compare uninsured patients starting in-center hemodialysis with a central venous catheter between 2010 and 2013 with similar patients with Medicare or Medicaid. We evaluated whether insurance status at dialysis start influenced the likelihoods of switching to dialysis through an arteriovenous fistula or graft and hospitalizations involving a vascular access infection. We used multivariable logistic and Cox regression models and transformed odds ratios to relative risks using marginal effects. RESULTS: Patients with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to switch to an arteriovenous fistula or graft by their fourth dialysis month versus uninsured patients (Medicare hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 2.43; Medicaid hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.38). There were no differences in rates of switching to arteriovenous fistulas or grafts after all patients obtained Medicare in their fourth dialysis month (Medicare hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.42; Medicaid hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.06). Patients with Medicare at dialysis start had fewer hospitalizations involving vascular access infection in dialysis months 4-12 (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Insurance-related disparities in the use of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts persist through the fourth month of dialysis, may not fully correct after all patients obtain Medicare coverage, and may lead to more frequent vascular access infections.

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

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

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

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

Electrocardiographic-guided tip positioning technique for peripherally inserted central catheters in a Dutch teaching hospital: Feasibility and cost-effectiveness analysis in a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION:: Peripherally inserted central catheters are venous devices intended for short to medium periods of intravenous treatment. Positioning of the catheter tip at the cavoatrial junction is necessary for optimum performance of a peripherally inserted central catheter. In this study, safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of electrocardiographic-guided peripherally inserted central catheter positioning in a Dutch teaching hospital were evaluated. METHODS:: All patients who received a peripherally inserted central catheter in 2016 using electrocardiographic guidance were compared to those where fluoroscopy guidance was used in a prospective non-randomized cohort study. Relevant data were extracted from electronic health records. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS:: A total of 162 patients received a peripherally inserted central catheter using fluoroscopy guidance and 103 patients using electrocardiographic guidance in 2016. No significant difference was found in malposition, infection or other complications between these groups. Due to personnel reduction and omission of fluoroscopy costs, cost reduction for each catheter insertion was €120 in the first year and, as a result of discounted acquisition costs, €190 in subsequent years. DISCUSSION:: The positioning results and complication rate are comparable to the previously reported literature. The cost reduction may vary in different hospitals. Other benefits of the electrocardiographic-guided technique are omission of X-ray exposure and improved patient service. CONCLUSION:: Implementation of electrocardiographic-guided tip positioning for peripherally inserted central catheter was safe and effective in this study and led to an improved high value and cost-conscious care.