Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units

To model the cost-effectiveness impact of routine use of an antimicrobial chlorhexidine gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings for the protection of central vascular lines in intensive care unit patients. This study uses a novel health economic m...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 10; no. 6; p. e0130439
Main Authors Maunoury, Franck, Motrunich, Anastasiia, Palka-Santini, Maria, Bernatchez, Stéphanie F, Ruckly, Stéphane, Timsit, Jean-François
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 18.06.2015
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:To model the cost-effectiveness impact of routine use of an antimicrobial chlorhexidine gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings for the protection of central vascular lines in intensive care unit patients. This study uses a novel health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing versus transparent dressings in a French intensive care unit scenario. The 30-day time non-homogeneous markovian model comprises eight health states. The probabilities of events derive from a multicentre (12 French intensive care units) randomized controlled trial. 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations of 1,000 patients per dressing strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The outcome is the number of catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a recent French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient is also estimated. 1000 patients per group simulated based on the source randomized controlled trial involving 1,879 adults expected to require intravascular catheterization for 48 hours. Chlorhexidine Gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings. The chlorhexidine gluconate dressing prevents 11.8 infections /1,000 patients (95% confidence interval: [3.85; 19.64]) with a number needed to treat of 85 patients. The mean cost difference per patient of €141 is not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: [€-975; €1,258]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is of €12,046 per catheter-related bloodstream infection prevented, and the incremental net monetary benefit per patient is of €344.88. According to the base case scenario, the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing is more cost-effective than the reference dressing. This model is based on the data from the RCT registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01189682).
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
Competing Interests: This study was funded by 3M Company, http://solutions.3mdeutschland.de/wps/portal/3M/de_DE/EU2/Country/. MPS and SFB are employees of 3M Company and had a role in preparation of the manuscript. 3M Tegaderm CHG is a product marketed by 3M Company. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Conceived and designed the experiments: FM AM. Performed the experiments: FM AM. Analyzed the data: FM AM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: FM AM SR JFT. Wrote the paper: FM AM. Contributed to reviewing the manuscript, as well as to the presentation of the figures and tables: MPS. Critically reviewed the draft of the manuscript for contents and clarity and for data interpretation, contributed to manuscript reviewing and editing, as well as to the presentation of the figures and tables, and the discussion: SFB.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130439