Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T21:01:07.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Chlorhexidine Gluconate Dressing in the Prevention of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Albert G. Crawford ,
Joseph P. Fuhr Jr.  and
Bhaskar Rao
Albert G. Crawford*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Joseph P. Fuhr Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Widener University School of Business, Chester, Pennsylvania
Bhaskar Rao
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
Department of Health Policy, Jefferson Medical College, Suite 115, 1015 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To compare the costs with the benefits of using chlorhexidine gluconate dressings on central venous catheters and to determine the effectiveness of these dressings in reducing local infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), costs, and mortality.

Design:

Cost–benefit analysis using randomized, controlled trial data on chlorhexidine dressing prevention of local infection and CRBSI, data on cost of chlorhexidine dressing versus standard treatment, data on averted cost of treating local infection and CRBSI, and data on mortality attributable to CRBSI. Decision analysis evaluated averted CRBSI treatment cost per patient resulting from chlorhexidine dressing use. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated net benefit of chlorhexidine dressing, varying baseline rate of CRBSI, incremental cost of treating CRBSI, and number of catheters, and evaluated mortality preventable through chlorhexidine dressing use, varying baseline rate of CRBSI, number of catheters, and mortality attributable to CRBSI.

Patients and Setting:

Patients of all Philadelphia area hospitals and one Philadelphia academic medical center.

Results:

Estimated potential annual U.S. net benefits from chlorhexidine dressing use ranged from $275 million to approximately $1.97 billion. Cost–benefit findings persisted in sensitivity analyses varying baseline rate of CRBSI, incremental cost of treating CRBSI, and overall number of catheters used. Preventable mortality analyses showed potential decreases of between 329 and 3,906 U.S. deaths annually as a result of nationwide use of chlorhexidine dressing.

Conclusions:

Chlorhexidine dressings would reduce costs, local infections and CRBSIs, and deaths. Use of chlorhexidine dressings should be considered to prevent infections among patients with catheters.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 8 , August 2004 , pp. 668 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Veenstra, DL, Saint, S, Sullivan, SD. Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA 1999;282:554–560.Google Scholar
2.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, Gerberding, JL, Heard, SO, Maki, DG. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR 2002;51:1–26.Google Scholar
3.Kluger, DM, Maki, DG. The relative risk of intravascular device related bloodstream infections in adults. Presented at the 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; September 26-29, 1999; San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
4.Mermel, L. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402.Google Scholar
5.Saint, S, Veenstra, DL, Lipsky, BA. The clinical and economic consequences of nosocomial central venous catheter-related infection: are antimicrobial catheters useful? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:375–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Wenzel, RP, Edmond, MB. The impact of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:174–177.Google Scholar
7.Byers, KE, Adal, KA, Anglim, AM, Farr, BM. Case fatality rate for catheter-related bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16(part 2, suppl):23. Abstract.Google Scholar
8.Arnow, P, Quimonsing, E, Beach, M. Consequences of intravascular catheter sepsis. Clin Infect Dis 2000;16:778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Martin, MA, Pfaller, MA, Wenzel, RP. Coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia: mortality and hospital stay. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:9–16.Google Scholar
10.Pittet, D, Tarara, D, Wenzel, RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. JAMA 1994;271:1598–1601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Smith, RL, Meixler, SM, Simberkoff, MS. Excess mortality in critically ill patients with nosocomial bloodstream infections. Chest 1991;100:164–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Pittet, D. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in the critically ill. JAMA 1994;272:1820.Google Scholar
13.Dimick, JB, Pelz, RK, Consunji, R, Swoboda, SM, Hendrix, CW, Lipsett, PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001;136:229–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Rello, J, Ochagavia, A, Sabanes, E. Evaluation of outcome of intravenous catheter-related infections in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1027–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Chiacchierini, RP, Hua, S, Genthner, D. Final Report: An Evaluation of Biopatch Antimicrobial Dressing Compared to Routine Standard of Care in the Prevention of Catheter-Related Blood Stream Infection, Dennis Maki and Leonard Mermel, Principal Investigators. Somerville, NJ: Johnson & Johnson Wound Management; 1999.Google Scholar
16.Maki, DG, Mermel, LA, Kluger, D, Narins, L, Knasinski, V, Parenteau, S. The Efficacy of a Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponge (BiopatchTM) for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 2000.Google Scholar
17.Wentzel, C, Moyer, R, Butong, E, Good, J. Pennsylvania Inpatient Data, 2003 1st Quarter: Data Notes. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council; 2003.Google Scholar
18.Collin, GR. Decreasing catheter colonization through the use of an antiseptic impregnated catheter. Chest 1999;115:1632–1640.Google Scholar
19.Darouiche, RO, Raad, II, Heard, SO. A comparison of two anti-microbial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Soufir, L, Timsit, JF, Mahe, C, Carlet, J, Regnier, B, Chevret, S. Attributable morbidity and mortality of catheter-related septicemia in critically ill patients: a matched, risk-adjusted, cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:396–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed