OBJECTIVES: To assess economic benefit and comparative effectiveness evaluation of peripheral inserted central catheter (PICC) AND central venous catheter (CVC) to provide evidence for decision-maker and healthcare practitioner for selecting suitable central venous access device.

METHODS: A systematic review of published literature for PICC and CVC was carried out. Outcomes data was statistically pooled and meta-analysis conducted. Total cost analysis was conducted for these two different types of central venous catheters in China.

RESULTS:The total costs pertaining to product, maintenance and complications as well as catheterization cost for PICC was found to be lower than CVC per patient per day (PICC vs CVC: CNY 94 vs CNY 201). The meta-analytic synthesis showed, no statistical difference in the following outcomes: obstruction 1.10 [0.54, 2.23, p=0.79], complication rate 0.69 [0.31, 1.53, p=0.36], phlebitis rate 1.02[0.66 vs 1.59, P=0.92] and Ectopic rate 1.85[0.58 vs 5.91 p=0.3], between the two groups.

However, pooled estimates for the outcomes comparing PICC and CVC were as follows: indwelling duration time 17.09 [16.59 17.59, p<0.01], success rate 2.49[1.96 3.16, p<0.01], complete chemotherapy cycle 1.99[1.43, 2.78, p<0.01], CLABSI 0.08 [0.01, 0.40,p<0.05].

CONCLUSIONS: PICC is cost-effective and shows statistically significant superior pooled clinical outcomes compared to CVC, from a Chinese healthcare perspective.