S N Tierney1, J Katke, J C Langer. 1. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most central venous lines in children are positioned using fluoroscopy, electrocardiography (ECG) has been shown to be accurate, and avoids unnecessary radiation exposure. We studied whether ECG may also have cost advantages. STUDY DESIGN: All ports and Hickman/Broviac catheters placed during a 2.5-year period were reviewed. Two surgeons routinely used fluoroscopy, and two used ECG. Costs included surgeon and anesthesia fees, operating room use, and fluoroscopy equipment and personnel. RESULTS: There were 287 cases with sufficient data to be included in the study (167 fluoroscopy and 120 ECG). In the ECG group, 12 (10%) were converted to fluoroscopy because an adequate tracing could not be obtained, but they were kept in the ECG group for data analysis. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, indication, previous catheters, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Time for surgical placement of the line was not significantly affected by the positioning technique. Ports placed using ECG were less costly than those placed fluoroscopically ($2,880+/-408 versus $3,595+/-357, p<0.001), and the same was true for tunneled external catheters ($2,249 +/- 435 versus $2,923+/-350, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The ECG technique was less costly than fluoroscopy, despite a 10% conversion rate. At our center, the savings were approximately $700 per procedure. Because operating room time used is similar, the additional cost of fluoroscopy can be attributed to the need for x-ray equipment and personnel.
BACKGROUND: Although most central venous lines in children are positioned using fluoroscopy, electrocardiography (ECG) has been shown to be accurate, and avoids unnecessary radiation exposure. We studied whether ECG may also have cost advantages. STUDY DESIGN: All ports and Hickman/Broviac catheters placed during a 2.5-year period were reviewed. Two surgeons routinely used fluoroscopy, and two used ECG. Costs included surgeon and anesthesia fees, operating room use, and fluoroscopy equipment and personnel. RESULTS: There were 287 cases with sufficient data to be included in the study (167 fluoroscopy and 120 ECG). In the ECG group, 12 (10%) were converted to fluoroscopy because an adequate tracing could not be obtained, but they were kept in the ECG group for data analysis. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, indication, previous catheters, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Time for surgical placement of the line was not significantly affected by the positioning technique. Ports placed using ECG were less costly than those placed fluoroscopically ($2,880+/-408 versus $3,595+/-357, p<0.001), and the same was true for tunneled external catheters ($2,249 +/- 435 versus $2,923+/-350, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The ECG technique was less costly than fluoroscopy, despite a 10% conversion rate. At our center, the savings were approximately $700 per procedure. Because operating room time used is similar, the additional cost of fluoroscopy can be attributed to the need for x-ray equipment and personnel.