OBJECT: Despite multiple preventive strategies for reducing infection, up to 15% of patients with shunt catheters and 27% of patients with external ventricular drains (EVDs) may develop an infection. There are few data on the cost-effectiveness of measures to prevent hydrocephalus catheter infection from the hospital perspective. The objective of this study was to perform a cost-consequence analysis to assess the potential clinical and economic value of antibiotic-impregnated catheter (AIC) shunts and EVDs compared with non-AIC shunts and EVDs in the treatment of hydrocephalus from a hospital perspective. METHODS: The authors used decision analytical techniques to assess the clinical and economic consequences of using antibiotic-impregnated shunts and EVDs from a hospital perspective. Model inputs were derived from the published, peer-reviewed literature. Clinical studies comparing infection rates and the clinical and economic impact of infections associated with the use of AICs and standard catheters (non-AICs) were evaluated. Outcomes assessed included infections, deaths due to infection, surgeries due to infection, and cost associated with shunt- and EVD-related infection. A subanalysis using only AIC shunt and EVD Level I evidence (randomized controlled trial results) was conducted as an alternate to the cumulative analysis of all of the AIC versus non-AIC studies (13 of the 14 shunt studies and 4 of the 6 EVD studies identified were observational). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how changes in the values of uncertain parameters affected the results of the model. RESULTS: In 100 patients requiring shunts, AICs may be associated with 0.5 fewer deaths, 71 fewer hospital days, 11 fewer surgeries, and $128,228 of net savings in hospital costs due to decreased infection. Results of the subanalysis showed that AICs may be associated with 1.9 fewer deaths, 1611 fewer hospital days, 25 fewer surgeries, and $346,616 of net savings in hospital costs due to decreased infection. The rate of decrease in infection with AIC shunts was shown to have the greatest impact on the cost savings realized with use of AIC shunts. In 100 patients requiring EVDs, AICs may be associated with 2.7 fewer deaths and 82 fewer hospital days due to infection. The relative risk of more severe neurological impairment was estimated to be 5.33 times greater with EVD infection. Decreases in infection with AIC EVDs resulted in an estimated $264,069 of net savings per 100 patients treated with AICs. Results of the subanalysis showed that AIC EVDs may be associated with 1.0 fewer deaths, 31 infection-related hospital days averted, and $74,631 saved per 100 patients treated with AIC EVDs. As was seen with AIC shunts, the rate of decrease in infection with AIC EVDs was shown to have the greatest impact on the cost savings realized with use of AIC EVDs. CONCLUSIONS: The current value analysis demonstrates that evidence supports the use of AICs as effective and potentially cost-saving treatment.
OBJECT: Despite multiple preventive strategies for reducing infection, up to 15% of patients with shunt catheters and 27% of patients with external ventricular drains (EVDs) may develop an infection. There are few data on the cost-effectiveness of measures to prevent hydrocephalus catheter infection from the hospital perspective. The objective of this study was to perform a cost-consequence analysis to assess the potential clinical and economic value of antibiotic-impregnated catheter (AIC) shunts and EVDs compared with non-AIC shunts and EVDs in the treatment of hydrocephalus from a hospital perspective. METHODS: The authors used decision analytical techniques to assess the clinical and economic consequences of using antibiotic-impregnated shunts and EVDs from a hospital perspective. Model inputs were derived from the published, peer-reviewed literature. Clinical studies comparing infection rates and the clinical and economic impact of infections associated with the use of AICs and standard catheters (non-AICs) were evaluated. Outcomes assessed included infections, deaths due to infection, surgeries due to infection, and cost associated with shunt- and EVD-related infection. A subanalysis using only AIC shunt and EVD Level I evidence (randomized controlled trial results) was conducted as an alternate to the cumulative analysis of all of the AIC versus non-AIC studies (13 of the 14 shunt studies and 4 of the 6 EVD studies identified were observational). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how changes in the values of uncertain parameters affected the results of the model. RESULTS: In 100 patients requiring shunts, AICs may be associated with 0.5 fewer deaths, 71 fewer hospital days, 11 fewer surgeries, and $128,228 of net savings in hospital costs due to decreased infection. Results of the subanalysis showed that AICs may be associated with 1.9 fewer deaths, 1611 fewer hospital days, 25 fewer surgeries, and $346,616 of net savings in hospital costs due to decreased infection. The rate of decrease in infection with AIC shunts was shown to have the greatest impact on the cost savings realized with use of AIC shunts. In 100 patients requiring EVDs, AICs may be associated with 2.7 fewer deaths and 82 fewer hospital days due to infection. The relative risk of more severe neurological impairment was estimated to be 5.33 times greater with EVD infection. Decreases in infection with AIC EVDs resulted in an estimated $264,069 of net savings per 100 patients treated with AICs. Results of the subanalysis showed that AIC EVDs may be associated with 1.0 fewer deaths, 31 infection-related hospital days averted, and $74,631 saved per 100 patients treated with AIC EVDs. As was seen with AIC shunts, the rate of decrease in infection with AIC EVDs was shown to have the greatest impact on the cost savings realized with use of AIC EVDs. CONCLUSIONS: The current value analysis demonstrates that evidence supports the use of AICs as effective and potentially cost-saving treatment.
Authors: Chad R Gordon; Amir Wolff; Gabriel F Santiago; Kenneth Liebman; Erol Veznedaroglu; Frank D Vrionis; Judy Huang; Henry Brem; Mark Luciano Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Erik J van Lindert; Martine van Bilsen; Michiel van der Flier; Eva Kolwijck; Hans Delye; Jaap Ten Oever Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Afroditi-Despina Lalou; Marek Czosnyka; Matthew R Garnett; Eva Nabbanja; Gianpaolo Petrella; Peter J Hutchinson; John D Pickard; Zofia Czosnyka Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Conor L Mallucci; Michael D Jenkinson; Elizabeth J Conroy; John C Hartley; Michaela Brown; Tracy Moitt; Joanne Dalton; Tom Kearns; Michael J Griffiths; Giovanna Culeddu; Tom Solomon; Dyfrig Hughes; Carrol Gamble Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Charlene Y C Chau; Claudia L Craven; Andres M Rubiano; Hadie Adams; Selma Tülü; Marek Czosnyka; Franco Servadei; Ari Ercole; Peter J Hutchinson; Angelos G Kolias Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.241