Search

Background: A reliable central venous access device is a cornerstone in the treatment of cancer. Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implanted chest ports (PORT) are commonly used for the delivery of chemotherapy. Both types of catheter can cause adverse events such as catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT), infection and mechanical complications. Method: We conducted a randomized controlled trial including 399 patients with cancer and performed a health economic evaluation investigating the cost related to PICCs and PORTs using several clinically relevant dimensions from a healthcare perspective. The cost was determined using process and cost estimate models. Result: PICCs are associated with a higher total cost when compared with PORTs. Combining the costs of all categories, the prize per inserted device was 824.58 EUR for PICC and 662.34 EUR for PORT. When adjusting for total catheter dwell time the price was 6.58 EUR/day for PICC and 3.01 EUR/day for PORT. The difference in CR-DVT was the main contributor to the difference in cost. The daily cost of PICC is approximately twice to that of PORT. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that the cost from a healthcare perspective is higher in cancer patients receiving a PICC than to those with a PORT. The difference is driven mainly by the cost related to the management of adverse events. Our findings are relevant to anaesthetists, oncologists and vascular access clinicians and should be considered when choosing vascular access device prior to chemotherapy. (Less)

Background Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation. Methods Based on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine-scopolamine or glycopyrronium. Results Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine-scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups. Conclusion Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation.