Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 51-58

  Tuffaha, Haitham W ^a,b   Rickard, Claire M ^a,b,c   Webster, Joan ^a,b,c   Marsh, Nicole ^a,b,c   Gordon, Louisa ^a,b   Wallis, Marianne ^b,d   Scuffham, Paul A ^a,b  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c ROYAL BRISBANE AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CATHETER INFECTION; CATHETER OCCLUSION; CATHETER REMOVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL STAFF; PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETER; PHLEBITIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGISTERED NURSE; TREATMENT INDICATION; VEIN CATHETERIZATION;

ADULT; CATHETERIZATION, PERIPHERAL; CATHETERS, INDWELLING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVICE REMOVAL; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PHLEBITIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUEENSLAND; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84893625713     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0077-2     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Hadaway L. Short peripheral intravenous catheters and infections. J Infus Nurs. 2012;35(4):230-40.
2. Gupta A, Mehta Y, Juneja R, Trehan N. The effect of cannula material on the incidence of peripheral venous thrombophlebitis. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(11):1139-42.
3. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc Mayo Clin. 2006;81(9):1159-71.
4. White SA. Peripheral intravenous therapy-related phlebitis rates in an adult population. J Intraven Nurs. 2001;24(1):19-24.
5. O'Grady N, Alexander M, Burns L, Dellinger E. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/BSI/BSI-guidelines-2011.html. Accessed May 2013.
6. Webster J, Osborne S, Rickard CM, New K. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Online). 2013;4:CD007798.
7. Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail MR, French V, et al. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9847):1066-74.
8. Rickard CM, McCann D, Munnings J, McGrail MR. Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. 2010;8:53.
9. Van Donk P, Rickard CM, McGrail MR, Doolan G. Routine replacement versus clinical monitoring of peripheral intravenous catheters in a regional hospital in the home program: a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(9):915-7.
10. Webster J, Clarke S, Paterson D, Hutton A, van Dyk S, Gale C, et al. Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 2008;337:a339.
11. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(2):S68-80.
12. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23(1):377-401.
13. Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405-15.
14. Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):781-98.
15. Australian hospital statistics 2011-12. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2013. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129543133. Accessed December 2013.
16. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ. 1996;5(6):513-24.
17. Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan AR. The value of value of information best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):699-709.
18. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(1):21-32.
19. Koerkamp BG, Spronk S, Stijnen T, Hunink MGM. Value of information analyses of economic randomized controlled trials: the treatment of intermittent claudication. Value Health. 2010;13(2):242-50.
20. Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007;16(2):195-209.
21. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(2):207-27.
22. Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis, revisited. Health Econ. 2013;22(1):22-34 Epub 2011/11/24.
23. Fast facts on US hospitals. American Hospital Association. 2011. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml. Accessed May 2013.