Cost effectiveness of different central venous approaches for port placement

0

“US real-time guidance to the subclavian vein resulted in the most cost-effective method of central venous port placement and use.” Biffi et al (2014).

Reference:

Biffi, R., Pozzi, S., Bonomo, G., Della Vigna, P., Monfardini, L., Radice, D., Rotmensz, N., Zampino, M.G., Fazio, N. and Orsi, F. (2014) Cost Effectiveness of Different Central Venous Approaches for Port Placement and Use in Adult Oncology Patients: Evidence From a Randomized Three-Arm Trial. Annals of Surgical Oncology. May 20th. [epub ahead of print].

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: No randomized trials have so far investigated the cost effectiveness of different methods for implantation and use of central venous ports in oncology patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 403 patients eligible for receiving intravenous chemotherapy for solid tumours were randomly assigned to implantation of a single type of port, either through a percutaneous landmark access to the internal jugular vein, an ultrasound (US)-guided access to the subclavian vein, or a surgical cut-down access through the cephalic vein at the deltoid-pectoralis groove. Insertion and maintenance costs were estimated by obtaining the charges for an average implant and use, while the costs of the management of complications were analytically assessed. The total cost was defined as the purchase cost plus the insertion cost plus the maintenance cost plus the cost of treatment of the complications, if any.

RESULTS: A total of 401 patients were evaluable-132 with the internal jugular vein, 136 with the subclavian vein and 133 with the cephalic vein access. No differences were found for the rate of early complications. The US-guided subclavian insertion site had significantly lower failures. Infections occurred in 1, 3, and 3 patients (internal jugular, subclavian, and cephalic access, respectively; p = 0.464), whereas venous thrombosis was observed in 15, 8, and 11 patients, respectively (p = 0.272). Mean cost for purchase, implantation, diagnosis and treatment of complications in each patient was 2,167.85 for subclavian US-guided, 2,335.87 for cephalic, and 2,384.10 for internal jugular access, respectively (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION: US real-time guidance to the subclavian vein resulted in the most cost-effective method of central venous port placement and use.

Other intravenous and vascular access resources that may be of interest (External links – IVTEAM has no responsibility for content).

Main page

Share.

Comments are closed.

Free Email Updates
Join 5.5K IVTEAM members. Subscribe now and be the first to receive all the latest free updates from IVTEAM!
100% Privacy. We don't spam.