In Response: "Oral versus IV treatment for catheter-related bloodstream infections - by Burke A. Cunha"


Autoria(s): Halton, Kate; Graves, Nicholas
Data(s)

2007

Resumo

In his letter Cunha suggests that oral antibiotic therapy is safer and less expensive than intravenous therapy via central venous catheters (CVCs) (1). The implication is that costs will fall and increased health benefits will be enjoyed resulting in a gain in efficiency within the healthcare system. CVCs are often used in critically ill patients to deliver antimicrobial therapy, but expose patients to a risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Our current knowledge about the efficiency (i.e. costeffectiveness) of allocating resources toward interventions that prevent CRBSI in patients requiring a CVC has already been reviewed (2). If for some patient groups antimicrobial therapy can be delivered orally, instead of through a CVC, then the costs and benefits of this alternate strategy should be evaluated...

Formato

application/pdf

Identificador

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/75183/

Publicador

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Relação

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/75183/1/EID_-_Oral_v_IV.pdf

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/11/pdfs/07-0729.pdf

Halton, Kate & Graves, Nicholas (2007) In Response: "Oral versus IV treatment for catheter-related bloodstream infections - by Burke A. Cunha". Emerging Infectious Diseases, 13(11), pp. 1800-1801.

Direitos

Copyright 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Fonte

Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation; School of Public Health & Social Work

Palavras-Chave #110309 Infectious Diseases #110310 Intensive Care #140208 Health Economics
Tipo

Journal Article