liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer-A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Ryhov Cty Hosp, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8711-9044
Ryhov Cty Hosp, Sweden.
Ryhov Cty Hosp, Sweden.
Skane Univ Hosp, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-5172, E-ISSN 1399-6576, Vol. 64, no 3, p. 385-393Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
WILEY , 2020. Vol. 64, no 3, p. 385-393
Keywords [en]
adverse effects; economics; neoplasm; peripherally inserted central line; vascular access device; vascular access port
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-162496DOI: 10.1111/aas.13505ISI: 000498824400001PubMedID: 31721153OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-162496DiVA, id: diva2:1379017
Note

Funding Agencies|Futurum (The Academy for Healthcare, Jonkoping County Council, Sweden)

Available from: 2019-12-16 Created: 2019-12-16 Last updated: 2024-01-10

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Taxbro, KnutBernfort, LarsBerg, Sören

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Taxbro, KnutBernfort, LarsBerg, Sören
By organisation
Division of Cardiovascular MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDivision of Society and HealthDivision of Diagnostics and Specialist MedicineDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery
In the same journal
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 113 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf