IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0130439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Franck Maunoury
  • Anastasiia Motrunich
  • Maria Palka-Santini
  • Stéphanie F Bernatchez
  • Stéphane Ruckly
  • Jean-François Timsit

Abstract

Objective: 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. Design: 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. Patients: 1000 patients per group simulated based on the source randomized controlled trial involving 1,879 adults expected to require intravascular catheterization for 48 hours. Intervention: Chlorhexidine Gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings. Results: 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. Conclusions: According to the base case scenario, the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing is more cost-effective than the reference dressing. Trial Registration: This model is based on the data from the RCT registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01189682).

Suggested Citation

  • Franck Maunoury & Anastasiia Motrunich & Maria Palka-Santini & Stéphanie F Bernatchez & Stéphane Ruckly & Jean-François Timsit, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130439
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130439
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130439&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0130439?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J.Robert Beck & Stephen G. Pauker, 1983. "The Markov Process in Medical Prognosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(4), pages 419-458, December.
    2. Frank A. Sonnenberg & J. Robert Beck, 1993. "Markov Models in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 322-338, December.
    3. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, 1996. "An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 513-524, November.
    4. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Franck Maunoury & Christian Farinetto & Stéphane Ruckly & Jeremy Guenezan & Jean-Christophe Lucet & Alain Lepape & Julien Pascal & Bertrand Souweine & Olivier Mimoz & Jean-François Timsit, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol solution in the prevention of intravascular-catheter-related bloodstream infections in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    2. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley, 2013. "An Efficient Method for Computing Single-Parameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 755-766, August.
    3. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    4. de Wit, G.Ardine & Ramsteijn, Paul G & de Charro, Frank Th, 1998. "Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 215-232, June.
    5. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 6," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 671-678, July.
    6. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    7. K. Claxton & P. J. Neumannn & S. S. Araki & M. C. Weinstein, "undated". "Bayesian Value-of-Information Analysis: An Application to a Policy Model of Alzheimer's Disease," Discussion Papers 00/39, Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Nicky J. Welton & Jason J. Madan & Deborah M. Caldwell & Tim J. Peters & Anthony E. Ades, 2014. "Expected Value of Sample Information for Multi-Arm Cluster Randomized Trials with Binary Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 352-365, April.
    9. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan & Penny Breeze, 2015. "Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 570-583, July.
    10. Josh J. Carlson & Rahber Thariani & Josh Roth & Julie Gralow & N. Lynn Henry & Laura Esmail & Pat Deverka & Scott D. Ramsey & Laurence Baker & David L. Veenstra, 2013. "Value-of-Information Analysis within a Stakeholder-Driven Research Prioritization Process in a US Setting: An Application in Cancer Genomics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 463-471, May.
    11. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan, 2014. "Estimating Multiparameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information from a Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 311-326, April.
    12. Jeff Miller & Rolf Ulrich, 2019. "The quest for an optimal alpha," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    13. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    14. Bruce A. Craig & Peter P. Sendi, 2002. "Estimation of the transition matrix of a discrete‐time Markov chain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 33-42, January.
    15. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225, November.
    16. Gordon B. Hazen, 2022. "Augmenting Markov Cohort Analysis to Compute (Co)Variances: Implications for Strength of Cost-Effectiveness," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 3170-3180, November.
    17. Jennifer Uyei & R. Scott Braithwaite, 2016. "Are There Scenarios When the Use of Non–Placebo-Control Groups in Experimental Trial Designs Increase Expected Value to Society?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 20-30, January.
    18. Manuel A. Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher, 2014. "The Value of Heterogeneity for Cost-Effectiveness Subgroup Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 951-964, November.
    19. Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2018. "Decision Criterion and Value of Information Analysis: Optimal Aspirin Dosage for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 427-438, May.
    20. Sze Huey Tan & Keith R. Abrams & Sylwia Bujkiewicz, 2018. "Bayesian Multiparameter Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision Making: A Case Study in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 834-848, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.