OBJECTIVES

Unlike traditional Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs), which are placed in central venous system for ≥30 days, analysis aimed to compare both clinical and economic outcomes between MC and PICC in inpatient setting in Korea.

METHODS

A cost model which evaluated the annual clinical and economic outcomes between MC and PICC (calculated per year) was developed. Model inputs included patient population, catheter characteristics, and device, complication and labor cost. Patient population was assumed based on assessment Service (HIRA) claims data: 100,000 patients were assumed to have PICC insertion, and of those. Based on published literature, per 1000-catheters was 0.2 and 5.49 for MC while 2.3 and 5.49 for PICC respectively. Time per insertion was 9.5 minutes for MC and 30 for PICCs. Published complication, device and labor costs were used.

RESULTS

By switching 50% of 100,000 patients from PICCs to MC, an estimated annual cost savings of $3.8M may be observed. When only PICCs are used the total annual device cost was $14.8M, total annual treatment cost for complications such as CRBSI and occlusion was $2.2M and total annual labor cost was $3.2M, while these costs were $13.3M, $1.1M and $2.0M with a 50% switch to MC.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of MC now offers patients to a new vascular access option with possibility of the full length of stay infusion therapy, lower complication rates, less time per insertion which is also a cost-saving option. The appropriate use of MCs can now relieve the burden of using unnecessary PICCs by providing both clinical and economic benefits to patients.