Voie centrale, PICC-line ou Midline : quel cathéter pour quel patient ?

Moulin, Virginie; Monti, Matteo

doi:10.53738/revmed.2022.18.766.121

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study supports our conclusion and suggests that although midline catheters may have higher costs, these are compensated by the complications prevented, and that patients also prefer midline catheters [ 28 ]. A study conducted by Moulin et al [ 29 ] proposes that ultrasound-guided midline catheters are a good alternative to PVCs in cases of prolonged treatment when PICCs placement is not feasible. Moreover, the study adds that, in addition to the reduction in the risk of HAIs, the main benefits for patients with this type of catheter are that it can be inserted at the patient’s bedside, does not require a confirmatory X-ray and allows to obtain repeated blood samples without additional punctures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a vascular access specialist team in a tertiary hospital: a cost-benefit analysis

Ricou Ríos,

Esposito Català,

Pons Calsapeu

et al. 2023

Cost Eff Resour Alloc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The use of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters is growing due to their potential benefits. These devices can increase patient safety and satisfaction while reducing the use of resources. As a result, many hospitals are establishing vascular access specialist teams staffed by nurses who are trained in the insertion and maintenance of these catheters. The objective of the study is to evaluate previously to the implementation whether the benefits of introducing ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheters, midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters compared to current practice by a vascular access specialist team outweigh their costs. Methods Cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the healthcare provider based on administrative data. The study estimates the reduction in resources used when changing the current practice for the use of ultrasound-guided midline and PICC catheters, as well as the additional resources required for their use. Results The use of an ultrasound-guided device on peripherally inserted central carheter, results in a measurable resource reduction of approximately €31. When 3 peripheral venous catheters are replaced by an ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter, the saving is €63. Similarly, the use of an ultrasound-guided device on a midline catheter, results in a reduction of €16, while each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing 3 peripheral venous catheters results in a reduction of €96. Conclusion The benefits of using ultrasound-guided midline and PICC catheters compared to current practice by introducing a vascular access specialist team trained in the implantation of ultrasound-guided catheters, outweigh its cost mainly because of the decrease in hospital stay due to the lowered risk of phebitis. These results motivate the implementation of the service, adding to previous experience suggesting that it is also preferable from the point of view of patient safety and satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a vascular access specialist team in a tertiary hospital: a cost-benefit analysis

Ricou Ríos,

Esposito Català,

Pons Calsapeu

et al. 2023

Cost Eff Resour Alloc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MCs have favourable dwell times and failure rates against other types of catheters. They can be inserted at the patient's bedside and require no radiological verification [8]. They have a high rate of first-attempt placements as well as low complication rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the patient requires prolonged intravenous treatment or the placement of a peripheral venous cathether is impossible, midline long peripheral venous catheters (MC) can be a good alternative [7]. They can be inserted at the patient's bedside, require no radiological verification and their bleeding safety profile does not differ from other venous catheters [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquired haemophilia A treated with recombinant factor VIIa by an infusion pump and midline catheter

Ryżewska,

Witkowski,

Robak

2023

Journal of Transfusion Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acquired haemophilia A is an autoimmune bleeding disorder treated with immunosuppression and bypassing agents such as recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa). The half time of rFVIIa is short, which requires frequent bolus injections in order to maintain hemostasis. Providing a continuous pump infusion instead of bolus injections could not only be more time and cost--efficient but also safer by maintaining a constant level of the bypassing agent. rFVIIa is administered intravenously usually through a peripheral venous catheter. In patients with prolonged intravenous treatment or difficult-to-access peripheral vasculature, midline long peripheral intravenous catheters are an interesting alternative. They have favourable dwell times and failure rates while maintaining the same risk of infection as other peripherally inserted central catheters. This technique has the potential to reduce the costs as well as risk to the patients. Herein, we report a case of a patient with AHA, who was treated with rFVIIa by an infusion pump and midline catheter.

show abstract

“…Secondly, the decrease in the number of bacteremias associated with both PVCs and PICCs/midline catheters implies a reduction in resource utilization. This value was calculated by multiplying the number of episodes of bacteremias related to the selection and insertion of PVCs and PICCs/midline catheters at the Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital (9 in 2021, according to our own data) with the cost associated with a patient developing this infection (€18,078) [18], and then dividing this value by the total number of patients with any type of catheter (29,547). Therefore, the reduction in the number of bacteremias derived from replacing every three PVCs or one PICC with an ultrasound-guided PICC, or every three PVCs or one midline catheter with an ultrasound-guided midline catheter, represents a quantifiable reduction in resources of approximately €5.50.…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a Vascular Access Specialist Team in a Tertiary Hospital: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Ricou Ríos,

Esposito Català,

Pons Calsapeu

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters is growing due to their potential benefits. These devices can increase patient safety and satisfaction while reducing the use of resources. As a result, many hospitals are establishing vascular access specialist teams staffed by nurses who are trained in the insertion and maintenance of these catheters. Objective: Evaluate ex-ante whether the benefits of replacing peripheral venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters with ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters by a vascular access specialist team outweigh their costs. Methods: Cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the healthcare provider based on administrative data. The study estimates the reduction in resources used when replacing peripherally inserted central catheters, midline catheters and peripheral venous catheters with ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midlines, as well as the additional resources required for their use. Results: Each ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter replacing a peripherally inserted central catheter, results in a measurable resource reduction of approximately €31. When 3 peripheral venous catheters are replaced by an ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter, the saving is €63. Similarly, each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing a midline, results in a reduction of €16, while each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing 3 peripheral venous catheters results in a reduction of €96. Conclusion: The benefits of replacing peripheral venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters by introducing a vascular access specialist team trained in the implantation of ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters, outweigh its cost mainly because of the decrease in hospital stay due to the lowered risk of healthcare-associated infections. These results motivate the implementation of the service, adding to previous experience suggesting that it is also preferable from the point of view of patient safety and satisfaction.

show abstract

Voie centrale, PICC-line ou Midline : quel cathéter pour quel patient ?

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Implementation of a vascular access specialist team in a tertiary hospital: a cost-benefit analysis

Implementation of a vascular access specialist team in a tertiary hospital: a cost-benefit analysis

Acquired haemophilia A treated with recombinant factor VIIa by an infusion pump and midline catheter

Implementation of a Vascular Access Specialist Team in a Tertiary Hospital: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About