Ultrasound-guided central line placement as compared with standard landmark technique: Some unpleasant arithmetic for the economics of medical innovation

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 98-100

  Kinsella, Stephen ^a   Young, Nicholas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular disease prevention; Clinical research; Cost analysis; Cost savings

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PNEUMOTHORAX; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CATHETERIZATION, CENTRAL VENOUS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MEDICARE; PNEUMOTHORAX; RISK MANAGEMENT; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58849095464     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00427.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1996.
2. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 1996 276 : 1172 7.
3. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 2003 327 : 361 4.
4. Sulek CA, Blas ML, Lobato EB. A randomized study of left versus right internal jugular vein cannulation in adults. J Clin Anesth 2000 12 : 142 5.
5. Troianos CA, Jobes DR, Ellison N. Ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein. A prospective, randomized study. Anesth Analg 1991 72 : 823 6.
6. Institute N, Clinical E. Guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters. NICE Technical report number 49. September 2002.
7. Hsiao WC, Braun P, et al. The resource-based relative value scale. Toward the development of an alternative physician payment system. JAMA 1987 258 : 799 802.
8. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Yntema D, Becker ER. Estimating physicians' work for a resource-based relative-value scale. N Engl J Med 1988 319 : 835 41.
9. Raad I. Intravascular-catheter-related infections. Lancet 1998 351 : 893 8.
10. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003 348 : 1123 33.
11. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001 286 : 700 7.
12. Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, et al. Central vein catheterization: failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med 1986 146 : 259 61.
13. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, et al. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1735-8. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3113.html [Accessed June 11, 2007].
14. Runyon BA. Paracentesis of ascitic fluid. A safe procedure. Arch Intern Med 1986 146 : 2259 61.
15. Boland A, Haycox A, Bagust A, Fitzsimmons L. A randomized control trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Hickman line insertions in adult cancer patients by nurses. Health Technol Assess 2003 7 36) iii, ix-x, 1 99.
16. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996 276 : 1339 41.
17. Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1990 113 : 147 54. http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf-new/pf- online?f-n=browse&doc=policyfiles/E-0.00.HTM&&s-t=&st-p= &nth=1&prev-pol=policyfiles/HnE/H-525.998.HTM&nxt-pol=policyfiles/ E-1.00.HTM& [Accessed June 11, 2007 ].