Department of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA.
J Vasc Access. 2024 Jul;25(4):1204-1211. doi: 10.1177/11297298231154297. Epub 2023 Feb 15.
Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement is a routinely performed invasive procedure in hospital settings with an unacceptably high failure rate that can result in significant costs. This investigation aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of using long peripheral catheters (LPC) versus standard short peripheral catheters (SPC) in the difficult vascular access (DVA) population.
A secondary analysis was performed of a randomized control trial that compared a 20-gauge 4.78 cm SPC to a 20-gauge 6.35 cm SPC for the endpoint of survival. This study assessed cost-effectiveness of the comparative interventions. Costs associated with increased hospitalization length of stay due to PIVC failure, including labor, materials, equipment, and treatment delays were estimated by utilizing healthcare resource utilization data. Cost-effectiveness of the LPC was analyzed through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, and the incremental net benefit. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results during the time interval of PIVC insertion.
Among the 257 patients, the average total cost for therapy was lower in the LPC group compared to the SPC group ($400 vs $521; mean difference -$121, 95% bootstrapped CI -$461 to $225). A marginally significant absolute difference of complication averted was found for LPC versus SPC (10.8%, = 0.07). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for LPC as compared with SPC was -$1123 (95% bootstrapped CI -$8652 to $5964) per complication averted. In a willingness to pay (WTP) analysis, as WTP = $0, the incremental net benefit (INB) $121 was positive, indicating LPC was less costly. Analysis of PIVCs that survived ⩽48 h ( = 134) demonstrated a lower average total cost for therapy among the LPC group ($418 vs $531; mean difference -$113, 95% bootstrapped CI -$507 to $282). Forty-seven of 66 (71.2%) LPCs did not experience a complication, compared with 37 of 68 (54.4%) SPCs, resulting in a significant absolute difference of complication adverted of 16.8% ( = 0.04). In addition, with a positive slope, the INB $113 was positive as WTP = $0, indicating LPC was estimated to be cost-effective.
When using ultrasound guidance for vascular access, LPCs are potentially a cost-effective strategy for reducing PIVC complications in DVA patients compared to SPCs. Given this finding, ultrasound-guided LPCs should be routinely considered as first-line among the DVA population in order to improve their overall care and wellbeing.
外周静脉导管(PIVC)置管术是一种在医院环境中常规进行的有创操作,其失败率高得令人无法接受,这可能会导致巨大的成本。本研究旨在确定在血管通路困难(DVA)人群中使用长外周导管(LPC)与标准短外周导管(SPC)的成本效益。
对一项比较 20 号 4.78cm SPC 与 20 号 6.35cm SPC 作为生存终点的随机对照试验进行了二次分析。本研究评估了比较干预措施的成本效益。利用医疗资源利用数据,估计因 PIVC 失败导致住院时间延长而增加的成本,包括劳动力、材料、设备和治疗延误。通过增量成本效益比、成本效益接受曲线和增量净效益分析了 LPC 的成本效益。进行了敏感性分析,以评估在 PIVC 插入时间段内结果的稳健性。
在 257 名患者中,与 SPC 组相比,LPC 组的治疗总成本较低(400 美元与 521 美元;平均差异-121 美元,95% bootstrap 置信区间-461 美元至 225 美元)。与 SPC 相比,LPC 组在避免并发症方面存在显著的绝对差异(10.8%,=0.07)。与 SPC 相比,LPC 的估计增量成本效益比(ICER)为-1123 美元(95% bootstrap 置信区间-8652 美元至 5964 美元)/每例并发症避免。在支付意愿(WTP)分析中,当 WTP=0 时,增量净效益(INB)为 121 美元为正值,表明 LPC 的成本更低。对存活时间 ⩽48 小时的 PIVC(=134)的分析表明,LPC 组的治疗总成本较低(418 美元与 531 美元;平均差异-113 美元,95% bootstrap 置信区间-507 美元至 282 美元)。与 68 例 SPC 相比,66 例 LPC 中有 47 例(71.2%)未发生并发症,有 37 例(54.4%),这导致避免并发症的绝对差异为 16.8%(=0.04)。此外,随着斜率为正,支付意愿为 0 时,INB 为 113 美元为正值,表明 LPC 具有成本效益。
在使用血管超声进行血管通路时,与 SPC 相比,LPC 可能是降低 DVA 患者 PIVC 并发症的一种具有成本效益的策略。鉴于这一发现,在 DVA 人群中,应常规考虑使用超声引导的 LPC 作为一线治疗方法,以改善他们的整体护理和健康状况。