Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Versus Centrally Inserted Central Catheter for In-Hospital Infusion Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs).

METHODS

Prospective cohort study was followed by an economic analysis over a 30-day time horizon. Propensity score matching was used to select hospitalized adults with similar indications for PICC or CICC. The composite outcome was device removal or replacement because of complications before the end of treatment. The economic evaluation was based on a decision tree model for cost-effectiveness analysis, with calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per catheter removal avoided. All costs are presented in Brazilian reais (BRL) (1 BRL = 0.1870 US dollar).

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients were followed in each group; 172 (79.3%) of those receiving a PICC and 135 (62.2%) of those receiving a CICC had no device-related complication, respectively. When comparing the events leading to device removal, the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the CICC group (hazard ratio 0.20; 95% CI 0.11-0.35). The cost of PICC placement was BRL 1290.98 versus BRL 467.16 for a CICC. In the base case, the ICER for placing a PICC instead of a CICC was BRL 3349.91 per removal or replacement avoided. On univariate sensitivity analyses, the model proved to be robust within an ICER range of 2500.00 to 4800.00 BRL.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC placement was associated with a lower risk of complications than CICC placement. Although the cost of a PICC is higher, its use avoided complications and need for catheter replacement before the end of treatment.

UltraSound guided PEripheral Catheterization increases first-atTempt success RAte in hospitalized patients when compared with conventional technique: SPECTRA - Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is the most common invasive procedure in the hospital setting. Ultrasound guided PIVC insertion in specific populations and settings has shown patient care benefits.

Objective:

To compare the success rate of first attempts of ultrasound guided PIVC insertion performed by nurse specialists with conventional PIVC insertion performed by nurse assistants.

Method:

Randomized, controlled, single-center clinical trial registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform under registration NTC04853264, conducted at a public university hospital from June to September 2021. Adult patients hospitalized in clinical inpatient units with an indication for intravenous therapy compatible with a peripheral venous network were included. Participants in the intervention group (IG) received ultrasound guided PIVC performed by nurse specialists from the vascular access team, while those in the control group (CG) received conventional PIVC by nurse assistants.

Results:

The study included a total of 166 patients: IG ( n = 82) and CG ( n = 84), mean age 59.5 ± 16.5 years, mostly women ( n = 104, 62.7%) and white ( n = 136, 81.9%). Success rate on the first attempt of PIVC insertion in IG was 90.2% and in CG was 35.7% ( p < 0.001), with a relative risk of 2.5 (95% CI 1.88–3.40) for success in IG versus CG. Overall assertiveness rate was 100% in IG and 71.4% in CG. Regarding procedure performance time, the medians in IG and CG were 5 (4–7) and 10 (6–27.5) min respectively ( p < 0.001). As for the incidence of negative composite outcomes, IG had lower rates compared to CG, 39% versus 66.7% ( p < 0.001), generating a 42% lower probability of negative outcomes in IG, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.43–0.80).

Conclusion(s):

Successful first-try insertion was higher in the group receiving ultrasound-guided PIVC. Moreover, there were no insertion failures and IG presented lower insertion time rates and incidence of unfavorable outcomes.

Patterns, appropriateness and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheter use in Brazil: a multicentre study of 12 725 catheters

Background

Little is known about peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use, appropriateness and device outcomes in Brazil.

Methods

We conducted an observational, prospective, cohort study spanning 16 Brazilian hospitals from October 2018 to August 2020. Patients ≥18 years receiving a PICC were included. PICC placement variables were abstracted from medical records. PICC-related major (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were collected. Appropriateness was evaluated using the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC). Devices were considered inappropriate if they were in place for <5 days, were multi-lumen, and/or were placed in patients with a creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. PICCs considered appropriate met none of these criteria. Mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics assessed the association between appropriateness and major complications.

Results

Data from 12 725 PICCs were included. Mean patient age was 66.4±19 years and 51.0% were female. The most common indications for PICCs were intravenous antibiotics (81.1%) and difficult access (62.7%). Most PICCs (72.2%) were placed under ultrasound guidance. The prevalence of complications was low: CLABSI (0.9%); catheter-related DVT (1.0%) and reversible occlusion (2.5%). Of the 12 725 devices included, a total of 7935 (62.3%) PICCs were inappropriate according to MAGIC. With respect to individual metrics for appropriateness, 17.0% were placed for <5 days, 60.8% were multi-lumen and 11.3% were in patients with creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level characteristics, multi-lumen PICCs considered inappropriate were associated with greater odds of major complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.02).

Conclusions

Use of PICCs in Brazilian hospitals appears to be safe and comparable with North America. However, opportunities to improve appropriateness remain. Future studies examining barriers and facilitators to improving device use in Brazil would be welcomed.