Cost-Minimization Analysis of Midline Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Korea

Smeet Gala; 심하나; 전영숙; 어윤재; 이권선; 권경우; 배성윤

추천

검색

자료유형: 학술저널

저자정보: Smeet Gala (1Becton Dickinson and Company New Jersey USA) 심하나 (Becton Dickinson Korea Seoul Korea) 전영숙 (Becton Dickinson Korea Seoul Korea) 어윤재 (Becton Dickinson Korea Seoul Korea) 이권선 (Becton Dickinson Korea Seoul Korea) 권경우 (Becton Dickinson Korea Seoul Korea) 배성윤 (인제대학교)

저널정보: 한국보건의료기술평가학회 보건의료기술평가 보건의료기술평가 제9권 제1호

발행연도: 2021.1

수록면: 58 - 64 (7page)

이용수

📌

연구주제

📖

연구배경

🔬

연구방법

🏆

연구결과

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기

Objectives: Due to the lack of an appropriate alternative vascular access device, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICCs) are used unnecessarily among patients who do not require longterm catheterization. Unnecessary use of PICCs can lead to catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSIs) or other complications that pose a substantial clinical and economic burden on patients and healthcare systems. Introduction of midline catheters (MCs) provides a cost-saving option for patients who require mid-term catheterization. This study investigated the cost-difference of using MCs vs. PICCs following the inclusion of MCs on a reimbursement list in Korea. Methods: A costminimization analysis conducted from the healthcare system perspective compared the costs of device use, complications, and labor for MCs and PICCs in a Korean inpatient setting over a year. Clinical and cost inputs were obtained from literature searches and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) Service database. The base case assumed that MCs were not reimbursed and thus all patients received PICCs. The future scenario predicted total costs when MCs were reimbursed, leading to an increased use of MCs in clinical practice. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify key drivers of cost savings. Scenario analyses assessed cost savings when the estimated percentage of patients using MCs was altered in the model. Results: Introduction of MCs led to cost savings of KRW 9,374,456,648 over a year, attributed to lower device costs, lower rates of CRBSI, and shorter insertion time associated with MCs compared with PICCs. The mean duration of PICC insertion time, annual mean salary of healthcare professionals performing PICC insertions, and prevalence of CRBSI for PICCs were key drivers of cost savings. Cost savings were still observed when the percentage of patients receiving MCs was as low as 10% in the model. Conclusion: The availability of MCs presents a cost-saving option to patients who were receiving unnecessary PICCs for mid-term catheterization during hospitalization in Korea.

#Catheter-related blood stream infection · Cost-minimization analysis #economic burden · Midline catheters · Mid-term catheterization · Peripherally inserted central catheters · Vascular access devices.

참고문헌 (29)

참고문헌 신청

Alexandrou E / 2014 / Central venous catheter placement by advanced practice nurses demonstrates low procedural complication and infection rates--a report from 13 years of service* / Crit Care Med 42:536~543

O’Grady NP / 2011 / Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections / Am J Infect Control 39:S1~S34

Gonzalez R / 2020 / Percutaneous central catheter (PICC) / StatPearls Publishing LLC

Chopra V / 2015 / The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method / Ann Intern Med 163:S1~S40

bardaccess.com [Homepage on the Internet]

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!