Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:40:53.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limiting the Number of Lumens in Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Cost: A Simulation Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2016

David Ratz ,
Timothy Hofer ,
Scott A. Flanders ,
Sanjay Saint  and
Vineet Chopra
David Ratz
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Management Research and Patient Safety Enhancement Program of the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Timothy Hofer
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Management Research and Patient Safety Enhancement Program of the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Scott A. Flanders
Affiliation:
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Sanjay Saint
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Management Research and Patient Safety Enhancement Program of the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Vineet Chopra*
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Management Research and Patient Safety Enhancement Program of the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
*
Address correspondence to Vineet Chopra, MD, MSc, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Bldg 16 #432W, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The number of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lumens is associated with thrombotic and infectious complications. Because multilumen PICCs are not necessary in all patients, policies that limit their use may improve safety and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To design a simulation-based analysis to estimate outcomes and cost associated with a policy that encourages single-lumen PICC use.

METHODS

Model inputs, including risk of complications and costs associated with single- and multilumen PICCs, were obtained from available literature and a multihospital collaborative quality improvement project. Cost savings and reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis events from institution of a single-lumen PICC default policy were reported.

RESULTS

According to our model, a hospital that places 1,000 PICCs per year (25% of which are single-lumen and 75% multilumen) experiences annual PICC-related maintenance and complication costs of $1,228,598 (95% CI, $1,053,175–$1,430,958). In such facilities, every 5% increase in single-lumen PICC use would prevent 0.5 PICC-related central line-associated bloodstream infections and 0.5 PICC-related deep vein thrombosis events, while saving $23,500. Moving from 25% to 50% single-lumen PICC utilization would result in total savings of $119,283 (95% CI, $74,030–$184,170) per year. Regardless of baseline prevalence, a single-lumen default PICC policy would be associated with approximately 10% cost savings. Findings remained robust in multiway sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Hospital policies that limit the number of PICC lumens may enhance patient safety and reduce healthcare costs. Studies measuring intended and unintended consequences of this approach, followed by rapid adoption, appear necessary.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:811–817

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Issue 7 , July 2016 , pp. 811 - 817
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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

REFERENCES

1. Meyer, BM. Developing an alternative workflow model for peripherally inserted central catheter placement. J Infus Nurs 2012;35:34–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Chopra, V, Flanders, SA, Saint, S. The problem with peripherally inserted central catheters. JAMA 2012;308:1527–1528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Ajenjo, MC, Morley, JC, Russo, AJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:125–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Chopra, V, Anand, S, Hickner, A, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2013;382:311–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Chopra, V, O’Horo, JC, Rogers, MA, Maki, DG, Safdar, N. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:908–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Chopra, V, Ratz, D, Kuhn, L, Lopus, T, Chenoweth, C, Krein, S. PICC-associated bloodstream infections: prevalence, patterns, and predictors. Am J Med 2014;127:319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Chopra, V, Ratz, D, Kuhn, L, Lopus, T, Lee, A, Krein, S. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis: contemporary patterns and predictors. J Thromb Haemost 2014;12:847–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Evans, RS, Sharp, JH, Linford, LH, et al. Risk of symptomatic DVT associated with peripherally inserted central catheters. Chest 2010;138:803–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. O’Brien, J, Paquet, F, Lindsay, R, Valenti, D. Insertion of PICCs with minimum number of lumens reduces complications and costs. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10:864–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Infusion Nurses Society. Infustion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2011;34.Google Scholar
11. Chopra, V, Flanders, SA, Saint, S, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multi-specialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:S1–S40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. O’Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Summary of recommendations: guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin infect Dis 2011;52:1087–1099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Evans, RS, Sharp, JH, Linford, LH, et al. Reduction of peripherally inserted central catheter-associated DVT. Chest 2013;143:627–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Chopra, V, Kuhn, L, Coffey, CE Jr, et al. Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge regarding peripherally inserted central catheters: a Michigan survey. J Hosp Med 2013;8:309–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Chopra, V, Kuhn, L, Flanders, SA, Saint, S, Krein, SL. Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge regarding peripherally inserted central catheters: results of a national survey. J Hosp Med 2013;8:635–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium. Quality Improvement Projects. http://www.mi-hms.org/quality-initiatives. Published 2013. Accessed March 14, 2016.Google Scholar
17. Chopra, V, Smith, S, Swaminathan, L, et al. Variations in peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcome in Michigan hospitals. JAMA Int Med 2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Chopra, V, Bernstein, SJ, Kaatz, S, et al. Epidemiology of PICC use in Michigan hospitals. J Hosp Med 2015;10.Google Scholar
19. Warren, DK, Quadir, WW, Hollenbeak, CS, Elward, AM, Cox, MJ, Fraser, VJ. Attributable cost of catheter-associated bloodstream infections among intensive care patients in a nonteaching hospital. Crit Care Med 2006;34:2084–2089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Al-Rawajfah, OM, Hewitt, JB, Stetzer, F, Cheema, J. Length of stay and charges associated with health care-acquired bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:227–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Appendix A: talking points to attract administrration support for venous thromboembolism prevention programs. AHRQ website. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patient-safety-resources/resources/vtguide/vtguideapa.html. Accessed July 13, 2015.Google Scholar
22. Univeristy of Michigan financial operations/procurement data. Obtained July 13, 2015. Availble on file.Google Scholar
23. Butler, AM, Olsen, MA, Merz, LR, et al. Attributable costs of enterococcal bloodstream infections in a nonsurgical hospital cohort. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Shannon, RP, Patel, B, Cummins, D, Shannon, AH, Ganguli, G, Lu, Y. Economics of central line--associated bloodstream infections. Am J Med Qual 2006;21:7S–16S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Moran, JL, Solomon, PJ, Peisach, AR, Martin, J. New models for old questions: generalized linear models for cost prediction. J Eval Clin Pract 2007;13:381–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. American Hospital Association (AHA). Fast facts on US hospitals. AHA website. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml. Accessed July 13, 2015.Google Scholar
27. Baxi, SM, Shuman, EK, Scipione, CA, et al. Impact of postplacement adjustment of peripherally inserted central catheters on the risk of bloodstream infection and venous thrombus formation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:785–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Yeung, C, May, J, Hughes, R. Infection rate for single lumen v triple lumen subclavian catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:154–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Hilton, E, Haslett, TM, Borenstein, MT, Tucci, V, Isenberg, HD, Singer, C. Central catheter infections: single- versus triple-lumen catheters. Influence of guide wires on infection rates when used for replacement of catheters. Am J Med 1988;84:667–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Safdar, N, Maki, DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005;128:489–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Nifong, TP, McDevitt, TJ. The effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Chest 2011;140:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Chopra, V, Fallouh, N, McGuirk, H, et al. Patterns, risk factors and treatment associated with PICC-DVT in hospitalized adults: a nested case-control study. Thromb Res 2015;135:829–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Graves, N. How costs change with infection prevention efforts. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2014;27:390–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Merlo, G, Page, K, Ratcliffe, J, Halton, K, Graves, N. Bridging the gap: exploring the barriers to using economic evidence in healthcare decision making and strategies for improving uptake. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2015;13:303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar