Literature DB >> 28406048

Placement of central venous port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in the routine clinical setting of a radiology department: analysis of costs and intervention duration learning curve.

Roman Rotzinger1, Bernhard Gebauer1, Dirk Schnapauff1, Florian Streitparth1, Gero Wieners1, Christian Grieser1, Patrick Freyhardt1, Bernd Hamm1, Martin H Maurer2.   

Abstract

Background Placement of central venous port catheters (CVPS) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is an integral component of state-of-the-art patient care. In the era of increasing cost awareness, it is desirable to have more information to comprehensively assess both procedures. Purpose To perform a retrospective analysis of interventional radiologic implantation of CVPS and PICC lines in a large patient population including a cost analysis of both methods as well as an investigation the learning curve in terms of the interventions' durations. Material and Methods All CVPS and PICC line related interventions performed in an interventional radiology department during a three-year period from January 2011 to December 2013 were examined. Documented patient data included sex, venous access site, and indication for CVPS or PICC placement. A cost analysis including intervention times was performed based on the prorated costs of equipment use, staff costs, and expenditures for disposables. The decrease in intervention duration in the course of time conformed to the learning curve. Results In total, 2987 interventions were performed by 16 radiologists: 1777 CVPS and 791 PICC lines. An average implantation took 22.5 ± 0.6 min (CVPS) and 10.1 ± 0.9 min (PICC lines). For CVPS, this average time was achieved by seven radiologists newly learning the procedures after performing 20 CVPS implantations. Total costs per implantation were €242 (CVPS) and €201 (PICC lines). Conclusion Interventional radiologic implantations of CVPS and PICC lines are well-established procedures, easy to learn by residents, and can be implanted at low costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Vascular access devices; central venous catheterization; costs and cost analysis; endovascular procedures; learning curve; peripheral catheterization

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28406048     DOI: 10.1177/0284185117695664

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  4 in total

1.  Percutaneous implantation of peripherally inserted totally implantable venous access systems in the forearm in adolescent patients.

Authors:  Anne Marie Augustin; Olivia Kertels; Verena Wiegering; Annette Thurner; Ralph Kickuth
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2022-04-04

2.  Cost-utility analysis of centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) vs. peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the oncology chemotherapy.

Authors:  Guoliang Shao; Xiaoying Zhou; Shaoya Zhang; Shuaijun Wu; Yichen Dong; Zuojun Dong
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-07-22

3.  Use of a hydrophilic coating wire reduces significantly the rate of central vein punctures and the incidence of pneumothorax in totally implantable access port (TIAP) surgery.

Authors:  Georgios Polychronidis; Roland Hennes; Cosima Engerer; Phillip Knebel; Daniel Schultze; Thomas Bruckner; Beat P Müller-Stich; Lars Fischer
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Baiying Liu; Zhiwei Wu; Changwei Lin; Liang Li; Xuechun Kuang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.