Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:53:01.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevention of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Richard Platt ,
B. Frank Polk ,
Bridget Murdock  and
Bernard Rosner
Richard Platt*
Affiliation:
Channing Laboratory, Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts and the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
B. Frank Polk
Affiliation:
Channing Laboratory, Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts and the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Bridget Murdock
Affiliation:
Channing Laboratory, Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts and the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Bernard Rosner
Affiliation:
Channing Laboratory, Hospital Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts and the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Channing Laboratory, 180 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A cost-benefit analysis was used to assess four strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in an acute care setting. Routine use of catheters with sealed collection junctions, selective use of these catheters, and oral antibiotic prophylaxis all result in fewer deaths, fewer infections, and lower overall costs than not using any of these. Routine use of sealed junction catheters results in fewer infections and deaths than does selective use. When the cost of a nosocomial urinary tract infection is $500, routine use of sealed junction catheters is also less expensive than selective use in many circumstances. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis would result in the lowest net cost and the fewest deaths and infections, if it were as effective as parenteral prophylaxis, if more than 72% of patients received it, and if important negative factors such as selection of antimicrobial resistance and adverse drug reactions are not considered. When there is no extra cost of sealed junction catheters, their use is less expensive than the oral prophylaxis strategy if the total cost of oral prophylaxis, including the cost of adverse reactions, is greater than $15. If the extra cost of sealed junction catheters is $4 per unit, their use is less expensive than oral prophylaxis when its cost exceeds $35. Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection reduces the overall cost of patient care, even when the prevention itself incurs costs. This analysis supports the routine use of sealed junction catheters in most acute care situations that require indwelling catheter drainage. Currently, we do not recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 1989 , pp. 60 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1989

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. Centers for Disease Control: Nosocomial Infection Surveillance 1984. in CDC Surveillance Summaries. 1986; 35(No.ISS): 17SS–29SS.Google Scholar
2. American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field. Chicago, American Hospital Association, 1980.Google Scholar
3. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al; The nationwide nosocomial infection rate. A new need for vital statistics. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:159–167.Google Scholar
4. Platt, R, Polk, BF, Murdock, B, et al: Mortality associated with nosocomial urinary-tract infection. N Engl J Med 1982; 307:637–642.Google Scholar
5. Givens, CD, Wenzel, RP: Catheter-associated urinary trad infections in surgical patients: A controlled study on the excess morbidity and costs. J Urol 1980; 124:646–648.Google Scholar
6. Scheckler, WE: Hospital costs of nosocomial infectious: A prospective three-month study in a community hospital. Infect Control 1980; 1:150–152.Google Scholar
7. Haley, RW, Schaberg, DR, Crossley, KB, et al: Extra charges and prolongation of stay attributable to nosocomial infections: A prospective interhospital comparison. Am J Med 1981; 70:51–58.Google Scholar
8. Garibaldi, RA, Burke, JP, Dickman, ML, et al: Factors predisposing to bacteriuria during indwelling urethral catheterization. N Engl J Med 1974: 291:215–219.Google Scholar
9. Burke, JP, Garibaldi, RA, Briu, MR, et al: Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Effect of daily meatal care regimens. Am J Med 1981; 70:655–658.10.1016/0002-9343(81)90591-XGoogle Scholar
10. Platt, R, Polk, BF, Murdock, B. et al: Reduction of mortality associated with nosocomial urinary tract infection. Lancet 1983; 1:893–897.10.1016/S0140-6736(83)91327-2Google Scholar
11. Larsen, EH, Gasser, TC, Madsen, PO: Antimicrobial prophylaxis in urologic surgery. Urol Clin North Am 1986; 13:591–604.Google Scholar
12. Gatell, HM, Garcia, S, Lozano, L. et al: Perioperative cefamandole prophylaxis against infections. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1987; 69:1189–1193.10.2106/00004623-198769080-00012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Roex, AJ, Puyenbroek, JI van Loenen, AC. et al: Single-versus three-dose cefoxitin prophylaxis in caesarean section: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1987; 25:293–298.Google Scholar
14. Shapiro, M, Wald, U, Simchen, E. et al: Randomized clinical trial of intraoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis of infection afler neurosurgical procedures. J Hosp Infect 1986; 8:283–295.Google Scholar
15. Platt, R, Munoz, A, Stella, J, et al: Antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiovascular surgery. Efficacy with coronary arterv bypass. Ann intern Med 1984: 101:770–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Myerowitz, PD, Caswell, K, Lindsay, WG. et al: Antibiotic prophylaxis for open-heart surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1977; 73:625–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Hoy, WE, Kissel, SM, Freeman, RB, et al: Altered patterns of post-transplant urinary tract infections associated with perioperative antibiotics and curtailed catheterization. Am J Kidney Dis 1985; 6:212–216.10.1016/S0272-6386(85)80175-XGoogle Scholar
18. Polk, BF, Tager, IB. Shapiro, M, et al: Randomized clinical trial of perioperative cefazolin in preventing infection after hysterectomy. Lancet 1980; 1:437–440.Google Scholar
19. Schaeffer, AJ, Story, KO, Johnson, SM; Effect of silver oxide/trichloroisocyanuric acid antimicrobial urinary drainage system on catheter-associated bacteriuria. J Urol 1988: 139:69–73.Google Scholar
20. Weinstein, MC, Fineberg, HV: Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co. 1980.Google Scholar