Abstract
Introduction:
The use of midline catheters for patients requiring a peripheral IV infusion is sometimes limited by their cost. Although decision trees allow them to be positioned in relation to short peripheral cannulas (SPC), Midlines, and PICCs, their economic impact has not yet been evaluated. A study was conducted to estimate and compare the actual costs of using the three types of catheters for durations of 7, 14, and 21 days.
Methods:
A budget impact analysis compared midlines or mini-midlines/long peripheral cannulas (LPCs) with SPCs and PICCs for typical medical indications excluding indications requiring central line (infusion of irritant or vesicant drugs): treatment of peritonitis over 7 days, cystic fibrosis infection over 14 days, and meningitis over 21 days. A micro-costing study identified resources used during catheter care procedures (consumables, medical/nursing care, examinations, mechanical complications). The cost of remote systemic complications was estimated from the French national cost study. Literature review compared data based on published complication frequencies.
Results:
Midline is more economic than the SPC (saving of 39€ over 7 days and 174€ over 14 days), and than the PICC (saving of 102€ over 14 days and 95€ over 21 days).
Discussion:
Despite a much higher acquisition cost of the Midline than a SPC, the cost of using a Midline is lower. Although this approach cannot be the only argument for choosing a medical device, it can contribute to it in a tense economic context. The micro-costing has been performed in a center placing PICCline using fluoroscopy for catheter tip positioning. The implantation of a PICC with ECG technique does not require an interventional radiology facility and involves significantly lower logistical and personnel costs. This factor is a limitation in this study. However, even with the use of EGC, the cost difference is in favor of Midline.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.