Suppr超能文献

外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管及其他静脉通路装置的经济学评价:一项范围综述

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

作者信息

Wang Kairong, Zhong Jie, Huang Na, Zhou Yingfeng

机构信息

School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

J Vasc Access. 2020 Nov;21(6):826-837. doi: 10.1177/1129729819895737. Epub 2020 Jan 2.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

随着外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)的广泛应用,大量研究比较了PICC与其他静脉通路装置,以便在不同临床场景中选择最合适的装置。经济属性是静脉通路装置选择的重要影响因素之一。该领域已开展多项经济评估研究,但这些经济研究的评估方法、内容、结果及质量尚未得到系统评价。因此,我们旨在梳理PICC及其他静脉通路装置经济评估的现有研究,为决策者选择合适的静脉通路装置提供经济证据。其次,我们评估了该领域经济评估研究的质量,以突出方法学上的不足,并为该方法在未来研究中的规范应用提供框架。

方法

通过11个数据库进行文献检索,检索时间从建库至2019年3月11日,以识别比较PICC与其他静脉通路装置的经济评估研究。在独立筛选文章和提取数据后,我们总结了纳入研究的方法、内容和结果,并使用乔安娜·布里格斯循证卫生保健中心经济评估关键评价清单评估其方法学质量。

结果

共纳入16项研究。在比较PICC与外周静脉导管的6项研究中,4项研究进行了成本效益分析,指出PICC比外周静脉导管更具成本效益。2项研究进行了成本分析,比较PICC与外周静脉导管在置入及维护/拔除期间的情况,但得出了不同结论。纳入的7项研究进行了成本分析,比较PICC与中心静脉导管。他们指出,在发达国家,PICC的导管置入成本低于中心静脉导管,而在发展中国家则得出相反结论。相反,关于导管维护以及导管置入和维护/拔除成本的结论并不一致。纳入的6项研究进行了成本分析,比较PICC与输液港。他们指出,PICC的置入成本低于输液港,而维护成本高于输液港。相反,关于导管置入和维护/拔除成本的结论并不一致。此外,纳入研究的方法学质量存在诸多不足,包括未进行贴现、未进行敏感性分析、未进行增量分析、成本和效果缺乏有效性等。

结论

本综述强调了PICC及其他静脉通路装置经济评估研究在数量、评估内容和经济评估方法方面极度匮乏。PICC与其他静脉通路装置成本效益分析的结论一致。相反,PICC与其他静脉通路装置成本分析的结论不一致,主要体现在PICC与外周静脉导管、中心静脉导管及输液港在置入及维护/拔除期间的比较上。本综述还突出了该领域经济评估的许多方法学问题。因此,有必要通过从导管置入到拔除进行成本效益分析、成本效用分析或成本效益分析,对PICC及其他静脉通路装置开展更多高质量的经济评估研究,为临床医生、患者和决策者在不同临床场景中选择合适的静脉通路装置提供证据。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验