Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model

Author:

Ablordeppey Enyo1,Koenig Adam2,Barker Abigail3,Hernandez Emily3,Simkovich Suzanne4,Krings James5,Brown Derek6,Griffey Richard7

Affiliation:

1. Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, St. Louis, Missouri; Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

2. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

3. Washington University, Center for Health Economics and Policy at the Institute for Public Health, St. Louis, Missouri

4. Medstar Health Research Institute, Division of Healthcare Delivery Research, Hyattsville, Maryland; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington, DC

5. Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

6. Washington University in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, Missouri

7. Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Abstract

Introduction: Despite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices. Methods: We developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model. Results: The estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to $14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation. Conclusion: In this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation.

Publisher

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Subject

General Medicine,Emergency Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3