Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
Infusion therapy comprises the parenteral administration of solutions, through peripheral or central vascular access. Some solutions and drugs are highly irritating to the vascular endothelium and therefore cannot be administered in peripheral vessels, because increase the risk of phlebitis and/or tissue necrosis. Thus, the alternative is the central venous catheter (CVC) where the access can be by direct puncture of a central vessel or peripheral vessel puncture with progression of the catheter until central positioning, through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC).
We must take into account that indication, insertion, handling and maintenance must be balanced with risks, benefits and costs. The insertion and maintenance of both catheters are not free of complications. Among the most frequent are: Infection, thrombosis, lumen occlusion and accidental early removal of the catheter. This often implies in the need for new vascular access, impacting on morbidity and increased treatment costs.
The PICC has some advantages over CVC, for example: avoids repetitive punctures and consequently decreased handling/pain; a lower risk of infection; avoids the use of venous dissections; reduces the risks of pneumothorax/hemothorax; reduces the risk of infiltration, extravasation, necrosis tissue and chemical phlebitis. Further, the PICC can be used as a long-term catheter with easy handling in extra-hospital condition. All these advantages suggest that this technology offers lower cost to the health system and more benefits for patients. However, PICC is not available for use in infusion therapy in patients of the Brazilian public health system, except for neonates.
The available literature does not address cost-effectiveness studies of this technology in the international scope comparing the PICC versus CVC. And, similarly, we do not have studies conducted in Brazil to incorporate this technology into our public health system, based on its benefits and potential cost reduction.
In order to fill this gap, this study aims to test if the use of PICC in patients with infusional therapy equal or superior to 10 days (Intervention Group), will show a lower incidence in the outcomes (infection, thrombosis or mechanical complications), besides being more cost-effective when compared to the use of CVC of short stay (Control Group).
Full description
Patient recruitment: Adult and pediatric patients will be included during hospitalization in the clinical/surgical units at the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.
Variables of registry: Clinical data (diagnosis, reason for indication of catheter, site of insertion, vessel size, pharmacological treatment); Socio-demographic (age, sex, education, income); Ultrasonography (vessel evaluation); Radiography (to ensure the correct positioning of the catheter); economic variables (costs of all inputs used).
Data collection: All variables will be recorded in an instrument developed by the authors.
Statistical analysis: Continuous variables will be described using means and standard deviations or median and range in case of asymmetric distribution of data. Categorical variables will be presented using frequency distribution. Analyses will be conducted using chi-square and t tests for independent samples. P values <0.05 will be considered statistically significant. A Statistical Package for Social Sciences v.20.0 will be used. The Cox Regression Analysis and Log-rank test will compare the groups in relation to complication-free survival.
Cost-effectiveness analysis: The cost-effectiveness analysis will be measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), showed by the difference in cost between intervention and control group, divided by the difference in their effect. It represents the average incremental cost associated with 1 additional unit of the measure of effect. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be based on the cost estimate for insertion and maintenance of the catheter, including values of the inputs used, medicines, costs with professionals, surgical environment, laboratory and imaging exams.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
624 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Eneida R Rabelo da Silva; Simone S Fantin
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal