Comparison between implantation costs of peripherally inserted central catheter and implanted subcutaneous ports;Comparaison entre le coÛt d'une pose de cathéter veineux central d'insertion périphérique et d'une chambre implantable

Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 239-244

  Viart, H ^a   Combe, C ^a   Martinelli, T ^a   Thomas, J ^a   Hida, H ^a  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE VALENCE   (France)

Author keywords

Costs; Implanted subcutaneous ports; Peripherally inserted central catheter

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CATHETER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; IMPLANTED SUBCUTANEOUS PORT; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; OPERATING ROOM; OUTPATIENT; PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER; REIMBURSEMENT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CATHETERIZATION; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERIZATION; COST; DEVICES; ECONOMICS; MIDDLE AGED; SUBCUTANEOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

CATHETERIZATION, CENTRAL VENOUS; CATHETERIZATION, PERIPHERAL; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 84928553137     PISSN: 00034509     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharma.2014.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Hoshal V.L. Total intravenous nutrition with peripherally inserted silicone elastomer central venous catheters. Arch Surg 1975, 110:644-646.
2. Taylor T., Massaro A., Williams L., Doering J., McCarter R., He J., et al. Effect of a dedicated percutaneously inserted central catheter team on neonatal catheter-related bloodstream infection. Adv Neonatal Care 2011, 11:122-128.
3. Astier C. Le PICC line: un cathéter prometteur mais méconnu. Anastomoses 2008, 2.
4. e journée du Réseau régionale d'hygiène-ARLIN de Basse Normandie 2010.
5. o032 «transfert de compétence: pose de voie veineuse centrale par l'IDE» 2013.
6. Duszak R., Bilal N., Picus D., Hughes D.R., Xu B.J. Central venous access: evolving roles of radiology and other specialties nationally over two decades. J Am Coll Radiol 2013, 10:603-612.
7. Thiolet J.M., Vaux S., Lamy M.A.G., Barret A.S., Léon L., et al. Enquête nationale de prévalence des infections nosocomiales et des traitements anti-infectieux en établissements de santé, France, mai-juin 2012: résultats 2013, Institut de veille sanitaire.
8. Chopra V., O'Horo J.C., Rogers M.A.M., Maki D.G., Safdar N. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013, 34:908-918.
9. Beckers M.M.J., Ruven H.J.T., Seldenrijk C.A., Prins M.H., Biesma D.H. Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer. Thromb Res 2010, 125:318-321.
10. Chopra V., Anand S., Hickner A., Buist M., Rogers M.A., Saint S., et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2013, 382:311-325.
11. Johansson E., Hammarskjöld F., Lundberg D., Arnlind M.H. Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: a systematic review of the literature. Acta Oncol 2013, 52:886-892.
12. Amerasekera S.S.H., Jones C.M., Patel R., Cleasby M.J. Imaging of the complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Clin Radiol 2009, 64:832-840.
13. Michaud C., Champagne J., Laporte L. Choosing a venous catheter in oncology. Listening to the patient. Perspect Infirm 2011, 8:24-28.
14. Gallieni M., Pittiruti M., Biffi R. Vascular access in oncology patients. Cancer J Clin 2008, 58:323-346.
15. Société française d'hygiène Recommandations par consensus formalisé: bonne pratiques et gestion des risques associés au PICC (cathéter central à insertion, périphérique). Hygiènes (revue officielle de la Société française d'hygiène hospitalière) 2013, 1-124. [XXI(6)].
16. Patel G.S., Jain K., Kumar R., Strickland A.H., Pellegrini L., Slavotinek J., et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 2014, 22:121-128.
17. Nomenclature générale des actes professionnels (NGAP) restant en vigueur depuis la décision UNCAM du 11mars 2005 2005, [consulté le 4mars 2014]. http://www.ameli.fr/professionnels-de-sante/directeurs-d-etablissements-de-sante/codage/ngap.php.
18. Les tarifs conventionnels 2012, [consulté le 4mars 2014]. http://www.ameli.fr/professionnels-de-sante/infirmiers/votre-convention/les-tarifs-conventionnels.php.
19. Woodard B.K., Burke J. Subcutaneous venous-access device removal: a cost analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2014, 123Suppl. 1:5S.
20. O'Brien J., Paquet F., Lindsay R., Valenti D. Insertion of PICCs with minimum number of lumens reduces complications and costs. J Am Coll Radiol 2013, 10:864-868.
21. Hernández P.R., López J.L.G., Martín J.G., Eguía B.R. Care and cost-utility indicators for high-flow PICC catheters: a study. Br J Nurs 2011, 20:S22-S27.