Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 13, Number 6—June 2007
Perspective

Economic Evaluation and Catheter-related Bloodstream Infections

Kate Halton*†Comments to Author  and Nicholas Graves*†
Author affiliations: *The Centre for Healthcare Related Infection Surveillance and Prevention, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; †Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Main Article

Table 2

Summary of economic evaluations of interventions to prevent CR-BSI included in the review*

Intervention Comparator Analysis Perspective Sensitivity analysis Time horizon Hospitalized patients Ref.
Antimicrobial catheters
  MR CVC CHG-SSD CVC CUA HC payer PROB, OW, SC Patient lifetime Adults at high risk for CR-BSI likely to require a triple-lumen, noncuffed CVC for >3 d 27
  MR CVC and CHG-SSD CVC Standard CVC CEA HC payer OW, SC, TH Duration hospitalized Critically ill patients requiring 
a CVC expected to be placed >48 h 29
  CHG-SSD CVC Standard CVC CEA HC payer PROB, OW, SC, TH Duration hospitalized Patients at high risk for catheter-related infections requiring short-term use (2–10 d) of multilumen CVCs 30
Aseptic technique
  MSB at CVC insertion Less stringent asepsis CEA Hospital OW, SC Duration hospitalized Patients requiring short-term multilumen CVC (specifically, those in ICU, with immunosuppression, or receiving TPN) 26
Skin preparation and dressing
  CHG skin prep PI skin preparation CEA Hospital PROB, OW, SC Duration hospitalized Patients requiring either a PVC or CVC (considered separately) for short-term use (<10 d) 23
  CHG dressing Standard dressing CEA† Hospital OW, MW, SC Duration hospitalized Patients at high risk for catheter-related infections requiring short-term use (2–10 d) of multilumen CVCs 24
Total parenteral nutrition
  TPN commercial bags TPN glass bottles CMA/CEA Hospital MW, TH Duration hospitalized Patients receiving TPN through catheter for severe bowel dysfunction secondary to Crohn disease, medical ICU patients, and surgical ICU patients 25
Replacement regimen
  Optimal CVC change regimen (10 d, 5 d) 3-d change regimen CEA Hospital OW, MW, TH Duration catheterized 65-year-old man in ICU with reversible disease process 28

*Except for the study in reference 25, which used a regression model, all studies used a decision tree. CR-BSI, catheter-related bloodstream infections; Ref., reference; MR, minocycline and rifampicin; CVC, central venous catheter; CHG-SSD, chlorhexidine gluconate/silver sulfadiazine; CUA, cost-utility analysis; HC, healthcare; PROB, probabilistic sensitivity analysis; OW, one way; SC, scenario; CEA, cost-effectiveness analysis; TH, threshold; MSB, maximal sterile barriers; ICU, intensive-care unit; TPN, total parenteral nutrition; PI, povidone-iodine; CMA, cost-minimization analysis; MW, multi way.
†Crawford et al. (24) identified their evaluation as a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) but they conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with health outcomes multiplied by a dollar value to produce a monetary valuation of health benefits.

Main Article

References
  1. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32:470–85. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. O’Grady  NP, Alexander  M, Dellinger  EP, Gerberding  JL, Heard  SO, Maki  DG, Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-10):1–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dimick  JB, Pelz  RK, Consunji  R, Swoboda  SM, Hendrix  CW, Lipsett  PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg. 2001;136:229–34. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blot  SI, Depuydt  P, Annemans  L, Benoit  D, Hoste  E, de Waele  JJ, Clinical and economic outcomes in critically ill patients with nosocomial catheter-related bloodstream infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1591–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Eggimann  P, Sax  H, Pittet  D. Catheter-related infections. Microbes Infect. 2004;6:1033–42. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Harbarth  S, Sax  H, Gastmeier  P. The preventable proportion of nosocomial infections: an overview of published reports. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54:258–66. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gastmeier  P, Geffers  C. Prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections: analysis of studies published between 2002 and 2005. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64:326–35. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Graves  N, Halton  K, Lairson  D. Economics and preventing hospital-acquired infection—broadening the perspective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:178–84. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Saint  S, Chenoweth  C, Fendrick  M, Arbor  A. The role of economic evaluation in infection control. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29:338–44. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD Factbook 2006. Brussels: The Organization; 2006.
  11. Kuntz  K, Weinstein  M. Modelling in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care. Merging theory with practice. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2001.
  12. Sculpher  MJ, Drummond  M, McCabe  C. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for healthcare decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15:677–87. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Stone  PW, Braccia  D, Larson  E. Systematic review of economic analyses of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33:501–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stone  PW, Larson  E, Kawar  LN. A systematic audit of economic evidence linking nosocomial infections and infection control interventions: 1990–2000. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30:145–52. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyland  DK, Kernerman  P, Gafni  A, Cook  DJ. Economic evaluations in the critical care literature: do they help us improve the efficiency of our unit? Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1591–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Talmor  D, Shapiro  N, Greenberg  D, Stone  PW, Neumann  PJ. When is critical care medicine cost-effective? A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2738–47. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Neumann  PJ, Stone  PW, Chapman  RH, Sandberg  EA, Bell  CM. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:964–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Philips  Z, Ginnelly  L, Sculpher  M, Claxton  K, Golder  S, Riemsma  R, Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooper  N, Coyle  D, Abrams  KR, Mugford  M, Sutton  AJ. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:245–50. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Coyle  D, Lee  KM. Evidence-based economic evaluation: how the use of different data sources can impact results. In: Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L, editors. Evidence-based health economics: from effectiveness to efficiency in systematic review. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2002. p. 55–66.
  21. Phillips  B, Ball  C, Sackett  D, Badenoch  D, Straus  S, Haynes  B, Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence. Oxford (UK): Centre for Evidence-based Medicine; 2001.
  22. Clarke  M, Oxman  AD. The Cochrane reviewers handbook 4.1.6. Oxford (UK): The Cochrane Collaboration; 2003.
  23. Chaiyakunapruk  N, Veenstra  DL, Lipsky  BA, Sullivan  SD, Saint  S. Vascular catheter site care: the clinical and economic benefits of chlorhexidine gluconate compared with povidone iodine. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:764–71. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Crawford  AG, Fuhr  JP, Rao  B. Cost-benefit analysis of chlorhexidine gluconate dressing in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:668–74. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Durand-Zaleski  I, Delaunay  L, Langeron  O, Belda  E, Astier  A, Brun-Buisson  C. Infection risk and cost-effectiveness of commercial bags or glass bottles for total parenteral nutrition. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:183–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu  KK, Veenstra  DL, Lipsky  BA, Saint  S. Use of maximal sterile barriers during central venous catheter insertion: clinical and economic outcomes. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1441–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marciante  KD, Veenstra  DL, Lipsky  BA, Saint  S. Which antimicrobial impregnated central venous catheter should we use? Modeling the costs and outcomes of antimicrobial catheter use. Am J Infect Control. 2003;31:1–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritchey  NP, Caccamo  LP, Carter  KJ, Castro  F, Erickson  BA, Johnson  W, Optimal interval for triple-lumen catheter changes: a decision analysis. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:138–42. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Shorr  AF, Humphreys  CW, Helman  DL. New choices for central venous catheters. Chest. 2003;124:275–84. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Veenstra  DL, Saint  S, Sullivan  SD. Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA. 1999;282:554–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McConnell  SA, Gubbins  PO, Anaissie  EJ. Are antimicrobial-impregnated catheters effective? Replace the water and grab your washcloth, because we have a baby to wash. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1829–33. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sonnenberg  FA, Roberts  MS, Tsevat  J. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care. 1994;32(Suppl):JS52–64. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Frazier  AL, Colditz  GA, Fuchs  CS, Kuntz  KM. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA. 2000;284:1954–61. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Graves  N, Weinhold  D. Complexity and the attribution of cost to hospital-acquired infection. In: Roberts JA, editor. Economics and infectious diseases. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2006.
  35. Sculpher  M, Fenwick  E, Claxton  K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461–77. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Harris  AD, Lautenbach  E, Perencevich  E. A systematic review of quasi-experimental study designs in the fields of infection control and antibiotic resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:77–82. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ades  AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med. 2003;22:2995–3016. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Briggs  AH. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care, merging theory with practice. 3rd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2001.
  39. Claxton  K, Sculpher  M, Drummond  M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 2002;360:711–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Main Article

Page created: July 05, 2010
Page updated: July 05, 2010
Page reviewed: July 05, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external