Reference:
Viart, H., Combe, C., Martinelli, T., Thomas, J. and Hida, H. (2015) Comparison between implantation costs of peripherally inserted central catheter and implanted subcutaneous ports. Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises. 73(3), p.239-44. [Article in French].
[ctt tweet=”Cost comparison of PICC and implanted subcutaneous ports http://ctt.ec/D8698+ @ivteam #ivteam” coverup=”D8698″]
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter or PICC Line and implanted subcutaneous ports are two types of central catheters allowing drug administration and blood samplings. These two devices are very controversial (because of infectious and thrombotic complications), it seemed interesting to estimate their cost of implantation and to correlate them with the reimbursement by the Health Insurance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct (material and drugs) and indirect (use of the room and staff) costs were prospectively evaluated for PICC Lines and implanted subcutaneous ports.
RESULTS: The global costs of the implantation of a PICC Line and of an implanted subcutaneous port in the interventional radiology room and in the operating room were respectively evaluated at 220.2 €, 286.6 € and 666.3 €.
DISCUSSION-CONCLUSION: Only a PICC Line in outpatients can be reimbursed by the health insurance; which amounts to 110.4 €. The establishment therefore loses money with every implantation. However, PICC Lines offer to the patients a fast access to a central venous way and thus an optimal therapeutic care, fulfilling one of the main missions of the public health institutions. Implanted subcutaneous ports are economically worth being implanted only in ambulatory inpatients. Its implantation in radiology seemed more profitable because the indirect costs were much more moderate.
Thank you to our partners for supporting IVTEAM
[slideshow_deploy id=’23788’]