Economic evaluation and catheter-related bloodstream infections

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are a serious problem. Many interventions reduce risk, and some have been evaluated in cost-effectiveness studies. We review the usefulness and quality of these economic studies. Evidence is incomplete, and data required to inform a coherent policy are missing. The cost-effectiveness studies are characterized by a lack of transparency, short time-horizons, and narrow economic perspectives. Data quality is low for some important model parameters. Authors of future economic evaluations should aim to model the complete policy and not just single interventions. They should be rigorous in developing the structure of the economic model, include all relevant economic outcomes, use a systematic approach for selecting data sources for model parameters, and propagate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters on conclusions. This will inform future data collection and improve our understanding of the economics of preventing these infections.

Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output. Comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective observational study.

Background The accurate measurement of Cardiac output (CO) is vital in guiding the treatment of critically ill patients. Invasive or minimally invasive measurement of CO is not without inherent risks to the patient. Skilled Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nursing staff are in an ideal position to assess changes in CO following therapeutic measures. The USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor) device is a non-invasive CO monitor whose clinical utility and ease of use requires testing. Objectives To compare cardiac output measurement using a non-invasive ultrasonic device (USCOM) operated by a non-echocardiograhically trained ICU Registered Nurse (RN), with the conventional pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) using both thermodilution and Fick methods. Design Prospective observational study. Setting and participants Between April 2006 and March 2007, we evaluated 30 spontaneously breathing patients requiring PAC for assessment of heart failure and/or pulmonary hypertension at a tertiary level cardiothoracic hospital. Methods SCOM CO was compared with thermodilution measurements via PAC and CO estimated using a modified Fick equation. This catheter was inserted by a medical officer, and all USCOM measurements by a senior ICU nurse. Mean values, bias and precision, and mean percentage difference between measures were determined to compare methods. The Intra-Class Correlation statistic was also used to assess agreement. The USCOM time to measure was recorded to assess the learning curve for USCOM use performed by an ICU RN and a line of best fit demonstrated to describe the operator learning curve. Results In 24 of 30 (80%) patients studied, CO measures were obtained. In 6 of 30 (20%) patients, an adequate USCOM signal was not achieved. The mean difference (±standard deviation) between USCOM and PAC, USCOM and Fick, and Fick and PAC CO were small, −0.34 ± 0.52 L/min, −0.33 ± 0.90 L/min and −0.25 ± 0.63 L/min respectively across a range of outputs from 2.6 L/min to 7.2 L/min. The percent limits of agreement (LOA) for all measures were −34.6% to 17.8% for USCOM and PAC, −49.8% to 34.1% for USCOM and Fick and −36.4% to 23.7% for PAC and Fick. Signal acquisition time reduced on average by 0.6 min per measure to less than 10 min at the end of the study. Conclusions In 80% of our cohort, USCOM, PAC and Fick measures of CO all showed clinically acceptable agreement and the learning curve for operation of the non-invasive USCOM device by an ICU RN was found to be satisfactorily short. Further work is required in patients receiving positive pressure ventilation.

Cost-effectiveness of a central venous catheter care bundle

Background: A bundled approach to central venous catheter care is currently being promoted as an effective way of preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). Consumables used in the bundled approach are relatively inexpensive which may lead to the conclusion that the bundle is cost-effective. However, this fails to consider the nontrivial costs of the monitoring and education activities required to implement the bundle, or that alternative strategies are available to prevent CR-BSI. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundle to prevent CR-BSI in Australian intensive care patients. ---------- Methods and Findings: A Markov decision model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the bundle relative to remaining with current practice (a non-bundled approach to catheter care and uncoated catheters), or use of antimicrobial catheters. We assumed the bundle reduced relative risk of CR-BSI to 0.34. Given uncertainty about the cost of the bundle, threshold analyses were used to determine the maximum cost at which the bundle remained cost-effective relative to the other approaches to infection control. Sensitivity analyses explored how this threshold alters under different assumptions about the economic value placed on bed-days and health benefits gained by preventing infection. If clinicians are prepared to use antimicrobial catheters, the bundle is cost-effective if national 18-month implementation costs are below $1.1 million. If antimicrobial catheters are not an option the bundle must cost less than $4.3 million. If decision makers are only interested in obtaining cash-savings for the unit, and place no economic value on either the bed-days or the health benefits gained through preventing infection, these cost thresholds are reduced by two-thirds.---------- Conclusions: A catheter care bundle has the potential to be cost-effective in the Australian intensive care setting. Rather than anticipating cash-savings from this intervention, decision makers must be prepared to invest resources in infection control to see efficiency improvements.

Nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheter laboratory : an integrative review

Objectives: To identify and appraise the literature concerning nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheter laboratory. Design and data sources: An integrative review method was chosen for this study. MEDLINE and CINAHL databases as well as The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute were searched. Nineteen research articles and three clinical guidelines were identified. Results: The authors of each study reported nurse-administered sedation in the CCL is safe due to the low incidence of complications. However, a higher percentage of deeply sedated patients were reported to experience complications than moderately sedated patients. To confound this issue, one clinical guideline permits deep sedation without an anaesthetist present, while others recommend against it. All clinical guidelines recommend nurses are educated about sedation concepts. Other findings focus on pain and discomfort and the cost-savings of nurse-administered sedation, which are associated with forgoing anaesthetic services. Conclusions: Practice is varied due to limitations in the evidence and inconsistent clinical practice guidelines. Therefore, recommendations for research and practice have been made. Research topics include determining how and in which circumstances capnography can be used in the CCL, discerning the economic impact of sedation-related complications and developing a set of objectives for nursing education about sedation. For practice, if deep sedation is administered without an anaesthetist present, it is essential nurses are adequately trained and have access to vital equipment such as capnography to monitor ventilation because deeply sedated patients are more likely to experience complications related to sedation. These initiatives will go some way to ensuring patients receiving nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia for a procedure in the cardiac catheter laboratory are cared for using consistent, safe and evidence-based practices.

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

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...

A time and motion study of peripheral venous catheter flushing practice using manually prepared and prefilled flush syringes

Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are the simplest and most frequently used method for drug, fluid, and blood product administration in the hospital setting. It is estimated that up to 90% of patients in acute care hospitals require a PVC; however, PVCs are associated with inherent complications, which can be mechanical or infectious. There have been a range of strategies to prevent or reduce PVC-related complications that include optimizing patency through the use of flushing. Little is known about the current status of flushing practice. This observational study quantified preparation and administration time and identified adherence to principles of Aseptic Non-Touch Technique and organizational protocol on PVC flushing by using both manually prepared and prefilled syringes.

Educational interventions for preventing vascular catheter bloodstream infections in critical care: Evidence map, systematic review and economic evaluation

Background Bloodstream infections resulting from intravascular catheters (catheter-BSI) in critical care increase patients' length of stay, morbidity and mortality, and the management of these infections and their complications has been estimated to cost the NHS annually £19.1–36.2M. Catheter-BSI are thought to be largely preventable using educational interventions, but guidance as to which types of intervention might be most clinically effective is lacking. Objective To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI in critical care units in England. Data sources Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases – including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases – were searched from database inception to February 2011, with searches updated in March 2012. Bibliographies of systematic reviews and related papers were screened and experts contacted to identify any additional references. Review methods References were screened independently by two reviewers using a priori selection criteria. A descriptive map was created to summarise the characteristics of relevant studies. Further selection criteria developed in consultation with the project Advisory Group were used to prioritise a subset of studies relevant to NHS practice and policy for systematic review. A decision-analytic economic model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI. Results Seventy-four studies were included in the descriptive map, of which 24 were prioritised for systematic review. Studies have predominantly been conducted in the USA, using single-cohort before-and-after study designs. Diverse types of educational intervention appear effective at reducing the incidence density of catheter-BSI (risk ratios statistically significantly < 1.0), but single lectures were not effective. The economic model showed that implementing an educational intervention in critical care units in England would be cost-effective and potentially cost-saving, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios under worst-case sensitivity analyses of < £5000/quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations Low-quality primary studies cannot definitively prove that the planned interventions were responsible for observed changes in catheter-BSI incidence. Poor reporting gave unclear estimates of risk of bias. Some model parameters were sourced from other locations owing to a lack of UK data. Conclusions Our results suggest that it would be cost-effective and may be cost-saving for the NHS to implement educational interventions in critical care units. However, more robust primary studies are needed to exclude the possible influence of secular trends on observed reductions in catheter-BSI.

Comparison of Radiation Doses for Catheter Ablation Procedures for Atrial Fibrillation with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Cases

Background: Catheter ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF) may frequently require long fluoroscopic times. We sought to undertake a review of radiation safety practice in our Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory and implement changes to minimize fluoroscopic doses. We also sought to compare the results with radiation doses for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cases performed in our hospital. Methods: Fluoroscopic times and doses for AF ablation procedures performed by a single operator on a Philips Integris H3000 image-intensifier were analysed for 11-month period. Results were compared with all PCI procedures performed over a similar period by multiple operators on a Philips Integris Allura FD system. Comprehensive review of radiation practice in the Electrophysiology laboratory identified the potential to reduce pulse frame rates and doses, and to narrow the field of interest without impacting the performance of the procedure. These changes were implemented and results analysed after a further 11 months. Results: In the pre-intervention period 50 AF catheter ablations had a mean fluoroscopic time of 86.4 min and mean fluoroscopic dose 68.4 Gy/cm2. Post-intervention 75 procedures had a mean fluorosocopic time of 68.9 min (p < 0.0001) and mean dose of 14.3 Gy/cm2 (p < 0.0001) 128 PCI procedures had a mean combined fluoroscopic and image acquisition time of 10.0 min and mean total dose 38.8 Gy/cm2. Conclusions: Catheter ablation procedures for AF may require lengthy use of fluoroscopy but simple modifications to radiation practice can result in marked reductions in radiation dose that compare favourably with PCI case doses