Gianluca Villa1,2, Rosa Giua2, Timothy Amass3, Lorenzo Tofani4, Cosimo Chelazzi2, Fulvio Pinelli2, A Raffaele De Gaudio1,2, Stefano Romagnoli1,2. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Section of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 3. Division of Pulmonary Critical Care & Sleep, Department of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 4. Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous trial, in-line filtration significantly prevented postoperative phlebitis associated with short peripheral venous cannulation. This study aims to describe the cost-effectiveness of in-line filtration in reducing phlebitis and examine patients' perception of in-hospital vascular access management with and without in-line filtration. METHODS: We analysed costs associated with in-line filtration: these data were prospectively recorded during the previous trial. Furthermore, we performed a follow-up for all the 268 patients enrolled in this trial. Among these, 213 patients responded and completed 6 months after hospital discharge questionnaires evaluating the perception of and satisfaction with the management of their vascular access. RESULTS: In-line filtration group required 95.60€ more than the no-filtration group (a mean of € 0.71/patient). In terms of satisfaction with the perioperative management of their short peripheral venous cannulation, 110 (82%) and 103 (76.9%) patients, respectively, for in-line filtration and control group, completed this survey. Within in-line filtration group, 97.3% of patients were satisfied/strongly satisfied; if compared with previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, 11% of them recognised in-line filtration as a relevant causative factor in determining their satisfaction. Among patients within the control group, 93.2% were satisfied/strongly satisfied, although up to 30% of them had experienced postoperative phlebitis. At the qualitative interview, they recognised no difference than previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, and mentioned postoperative phlebitis as a common event that 'normally occurs' during a hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In-line filtration is cost-effective in preventing postoperative phlebitis, and it seems to contribute to increasing patient satisfaction and reducing short peripheral venous cannulation-related discomfort.
BACKGROUND: In a previous trial, in-line filtration significantly prevented postoperative phlebitis associated with short peripheral venous cannulation. This study aims to describe the cost-effectiveness of in-line filtration in reducing phlebitis and examine patients' perception of in-hospital vascular access management with and without in-line filtration. METHODS: We analysed costs associated with in-line filtration: these data were prospectively recorded during the previous trial. Furthermore, we performed a follow-up for all the 268 patients enrolled in this trial. Among these, 213 patients responded and completed 6 months after hospital discharge questionnaires evaluating the perception of and satisfaction with the management of their vascular access. RESULTS: In-line filtration group required 95.60€ more than the no-filtration group (a mean of € 0.71/patient). In terms of satisfaction with the perioperative management of their short peripheral venous cannulation, 110 (82%) and 103 (76.9%) patients, respectively, for in-line filtration and control group, completed this survey. Within in-line filtration group, 97.3% of patients were satisfied/strongly satisfied; if compared with previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, 11% of them recognised in-line filtration as a relevant causative factor in determining their satisfaction. Among patients within the control group, 93.2% were satisfied/strongly satisfied, although up to 30% of them had experienced postoperative phlebitis. At the qualitative interview, they recognised no difference than previous experiences on short peripheral venous cannulation, and mentioned postoperative phlebitis as a common event that 'normally occurs' during a hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In-line filtration is cost-effective in preventing postoperative phlebitis, and it seems to contribute to increasing patient satisfaction and reducing short peripheral venous cannulation-related discomfort.
Authors: Agnes van den Hoogen; Tannette G Krediet; Cuno S P M Uiterwaal; Jeroen F G A Bolenius; Leo J Gerards; André Fleer Journal: J Perinat Med Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.901
Authors: Gianluca Villa; Cosimo Chelazzi; Rosa Giua; Lorenzo Tofani; Giovanni Zagli; Paolo Boninsegni; Fulvio Pinelli; A Raffaele De Gaudio; Stefano Romagnoli Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Claire M Rickard; Nicole Marsh; Joan Webster; E Geoffrey Playford; Matthew R McGrail; Emily Larsen; Samantha Keogh; David McMillan; Jennifer A Whitty; Md Abu Choudhury; Kimble R Dunster; Heather Reynolds; Andrea Marshall; Julia Crilly; Jeanine Young; Ogilvie Thom; John Gowardman; Amanda Corley; John F Fraser Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 2.692