Search

Background: Surgical site infection is a serious complication associated with significant morbidity, mortality and health care expenditure. Aims: To determine the clinical effectiveness and economic impact of using iodine-impregnated incise drapes for preventing surgical site infection. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases were systematically searched. Critical appraisal and synthesis of clinical evidence informed a decision analytical cost-consequence model. Findings: Nine studies were included in the systematic literature review. Evidence from cardiac surgery patients was considered appropriate to inform the cost analysis. The economic model evaluation estimated cost savings of £549 per patient with the iodophor-impregnated drape in the deterministic analysis and a mean cost saving per patient of £554,172 per 1000 in the probabilistic analysis. Conclusion: Using iodine-impregnated drapes in cardiac surgery patients may effectively reduce infections and provide cost-savings, but further research is required.

Purpose: To estimate the economic impact of a TegadermTM chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) gel dressing compared with a standard intravenous (i.v.) dressing (defined as non-antimicrobial transparent film dressing), used for insertion site care of short-term central venous and arterial catheters (intravascular catheters) in adult critical care patients using a cost-consequence model populated with data from published sources. Material and Methods: A decision analytical cost-consequence model was developed which assigned each patient with an indwelling intravascular catheter and a standard dressing, a baseline risk of associated dermatitis, local infection at the catheter insertion site and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), estimated from published secondary sources. The risks of these events for patients with a Tegaderm CHG were estimated by applying the effectiveness parameters from the clinical review to the baseline risks. Costs were accrued through costs of intervention (i.e. Tegaderm CHG or standard intravenous dressing) and hospital treatment costs depended on whether the patients had local dermatitis, local infection or CRBSI. Total costs were estimated as mean values of 10,000 probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) runs. Results: Tegaderm CHG resulted in an average cost-saving of £77 per patient in an intensive care unit. Tegaderm CHG also has a 98.5% probability of being cost-saving compared to standard i.v. dressings. Conclusions: The analyses suggest that Tegaderm CHG is a cost-saving strategy to reduce CRBSI and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses.