Cost comparison of four venous catheters: Short peripheral catheter, Long peripheral line, Midline, and PICC for peripheral infusion.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Journal of Vascular Access Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1177/11297298241258257
Elise Meto, Elise Cabout, Hervé Rosay, Florence Espinasse, Anne-Sophie Lot, Mostafa El Hajjam, Sabine Gnamien Clermont, Robert Launois
{"title":"Cost comparison of four venous catheters: Short peripheral catheter, Long peripheral line, Midline, and PICC for peripheral infusion.","authors":"Elise Meto, Elise Cabout, Hervé Rosay, Florence Espinasse, Anne-Sophie Lot, Mostafa El Hajjam, Sabine Gnamien Clermont, Robert Launois","doi":"10.1177/11297298241258257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of midline catheters for patients requiring a peripheral IV infusion is sometimes limited by their cost. Although decision trees allow them to be positioned in relation to short peripheral cannulas (SPC), Midlines, and PICCs, their economic impact has not yet been evaluated. A study was conducted to estimate and compare the actual costs of using the three types of catheters for durations of 7, 14, and 21 days.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A budget impact analysis compared midlines or mini-midlines/long peripheral cannulas (LPCs) with SPCs and PICCs for typical medical indications excluding indications requiring central line (infusion of irritant or vesicant drugs): treatment of peritonitis over 7 days, cystic fibrosis infection over 14 days, and meningitis over 21 days. A micro-costing study identified resources used during catheter care procedures (consumables, medical/nursing care, examinations, mechanical complications). The cost of remote systemic complications was estimated from the French national cost study. Literature review compared data based on published complication frequencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Midline is more economic than the SPC (saving of 39€ over 7 days and 174€ over 14 days), and than the PICC (saving of 102€ over 14 days and 95€ over 21 days).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite a much higher acquisition cost of the Midline than a SPC, the cost of using a Midline is lower. Although this approach cannot be the only argument for choosing a medical device, it can contribute to it in a tense economic context. The micro-costing has been performed in a center placing PICCline using fluoroscopy for catheter tip positioning. The implantation of a PICC with ECG technique does not require an interventional radiology facility and involves significantly lower logistical and personnel costs. This factor is a limitation in this study. However, even with the use of EGC, the cost difference is in favor of Midline.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"966-974"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241258257","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of midline catheters for patients requiring a peripheral IV infusion is sometimes limited by their cost. Although decision trees allow them to be positioned in relation to short peripheral cannulas (SPC), Midlines, and PICCs, their economic impact has not yet been evaluated. A study was conducted to estimate and compare the actual costs of using the three types of catheters for durations of 7, 14, and 21 days.

Methods: A budget impact analysis compared midlines or mini-midlines/long peripheral cannulas (LPCs) with SPCs and PICCs for typical medical indications excluding indications requiring central line (infusion of irritant or vesicant drugs): treatment of peritonitis over 7 days, cystic fibrosis infection over 14 days, and meningitis over 21 days. A micro-costing study identified resources used during catheter care procedures (consumables, medical/nursing care, examinations, mechanical complications). The cost of remote systemic complications was estimated from the French national cost study. Literature review compared data based on published complication frequencies.

Results: Midline is more economic than the SPC (saving of 39€ over 7 days and 174€ over 14 days), and than the PICC (saving of 102€ over 14 days and 95€ over 21 days).

Discussion: Despite a much higher acquisition cost of the Midline than a SPC, the cost of using a Midline is lower. Although this approach cannot be the only argument for choosing a medical device, it can contribute to it in a tense economic context. The micro-costing has been performed in a center placing PICCline using fluoroscopy for catheter tip positioning. The implantation of a PICC with ECG technique does not require an interventional radiology facility and involves significantly lower logistical and personnel costs. This factor is a limitation in this study. However, even with the use of EGC, the cost difference is in favor of Midline.

四种静脉导管的成本比较:短外周导管、长外周管路、中线和用于外周输液的 PICC。
导言:需要外周静脉输液的患者使用中线导管有时会受到其成本的限制。虽然决策树可以将中线导管与短外周套管 (SPC)、中线导管和 PICC 相比较进行定位,但尚未对其经济影响进行评估。我们进行了一项研究,估算并比较了在 7 天、14 天和 21 天内使用这三种导管的实际成本:预算影响分析比较了中线或迷你中线/长外周插管(LPC)与 SPC 和 PICC 在典型医疗适应症(不包括需要中心管路的适应症(输注刺激性或膀胱刺激性药物))方面的成本:治疗腹膜炎 7 天、囊性纤维化感染 14 天和脑膜炎 21 天。一项微观成本计算研究确定了导管护理过程中使用的资源(耗材、医疗/护理、检查、机械并发症)。远程系统并发症的成本是根据法国国家成本研究估算的。文献综述根据已公布的并发症频率对数据进行了比较:结果:中线比 SPC 更经济(7 天节省 39 欧元,14 天节省 174 欧元),比 PICC 更经济(14 天节省 102 欧元,21 天节省 95 欧元):讨论:尽管中线的购置成本远高于 SPC,但使用中线的成本更低。虽然这种方法不能成为选择医疗设备的唯一理由,但在经济形势紧张的情况下,它可以起到促进作用。在一家放置 PICCline 的中心,使用荧光透视进行导管尖端定位,并进行了微观成本计算。使用心电图技术植入 PICC 不需要介入放射学设备,其后勤和人员成本也要低得多。这一因素是本研究的局限性。不过,即使使用 EGC,成本差异也有利于 Midline。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Vascular Access
Journal of Vascular Access 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
31.60%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques. All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process. The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level: • Dialysis • Oncology • Interventional radiology • Nutrition • Nursing • Intensive care Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信