Peripherally inserted central catheter versus totally implanted venous port for delivering medium- to long-term chemotherapy: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on propensity score matching

Abstract

Background:

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) have been widely used for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. PICCs are associated with lower insertion cost, but higher complication rates than PORTs. However, there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness comparisons between the devices. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PICCs and PORTs for medium- to long-term chemotherapy from catheter insertion to removal.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching (PSM) from the hospital perspective. Data were collected from a retrospective cohort study. The total cost outcome comprised insertion, maintenance, removal and complication costs. The effectiveness outcome was the complication-free rate. The primary and supplemental outcomes were cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results:

A total of 1050 patients (after PSM for 417 patients) were included. The average total cost for 3–6 month ($603.55 ± 78.68 vs $1270.21 ± 128.84), 6–9 month ($731.40 ± 42.97 vs $1414.48 ± 155.43), and 9–12 month ($966.83 ± 53.78 vs $1587.76 ± 160.56) dwell times were all significantly lower for PICCs than for PORTs (p < 0.001). PICCs were associated with significantly lower complication-free rates than PORTs during the 3–6 month (65.22% vs 90.58%, p < 0.001), 6–9 month (53.33% vs 91.80%, p < 0.001), and 9–12 month (44.44% vs 88.46%, p = 0.015) dwell times. Ultimately, PICCs were associated with lower CERs than PORTs for the 3–6 month (928.54 vs 1395.84) and 6–9 month (1380.00 vs 1537.48) but higher CER for the 9–12 month (2197.34 vs 1804.27) dwell times. ICERs were 2564.08 and 1751.49 with dwell times of 3–6 months and 6–9 months, respectively.

Conclusion:

This study provided economic evidence that informs vascular access device choice for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. For 3–9 month dwell times, PICCs were more cost-effective than PORTs. Furthermore, ICERs were applied and the choice was determined by willingness-to-pay. For 9–12 month dwell times, PORTs might be more cost-effective than PICCs, and studies with larger sample size would be needed to verify this finding in the future.

Keywords

PICC PORT central venous access devices cost-effectiveness analysis economic evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Moss

Paul

, et al. Cancer and venous access (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial with associated qualitative research of venous access devices for delivering long-term chemotherapy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017; 40(2): S142–S143.

Boyd

Paul

, et al. Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Br J Cancer 2016; 114(9): 979–985.

Taxbro

Hammarskjold

Thelin

, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth 2019; 122(6): 734–741.

Gorski

LA.

The 2016 infusion therapy standards of practice. Home Healthc Now 2017; 35(1): 10–18.

Zhang

Cheng

, et al. Investigation and analysis of the medical practices of the standardized nursing practices for intravenous therapy in western region hospitals of China. Chin Nurs Manag 2018; 18(5): 632–635.

Martella

Salutari

Marchetti

, et al. A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a multicentric Italian experience. Anticancer Drugs 2015; 26(9): 990–994.

Zhi

, et al. Complications and costs of peripherally inserted central venous catheters compared with implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Cancer Nurs 2020; 43(6): 455–467.

Robinson

Souied

Bota

, et al. Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 171(3): 607–620.

Zhou

Zhang

, et al. Evaluation on effectiveness and safety of peripherally inserted central catheters technology: an overview of systematic review. J Nurs Sci 2016; 31(7): 90–94.

10.

Wang

Zhong

Huang

, et al. Economic evaluation of peripherally inserted central catheter and other venous access devices: a scoping review. J Vasc Access 2020; 21(6): 826–837.

11.

Sculpher

Claxton

Stoddart

, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

12.

Duclos

Orsini

Fuss

, et al. Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 2017; 20(9): A583.

13.

Husereau

Drummond

Petrou

, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013; 16(2): 231–250.

14.

Gen

, et al. Clinical guideline on venous access in oncology. Beijing: Beijing Union Medical College, 2015.

15.

Han

Cui

, et al. Actual cost consumption accounting of venous transfusion in public medical institutions. Chin Nurs Manag 2012; 12(6): 17–20.

16.

Austin

PC.

An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011; 46(3): 399–424.

17.

Fang

Yang

Song

, et al. Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 1197–1204.

18.

Taxbro

Hammarskjold

Juhlin

, et al. Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer-A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2020; 64(3): 385–393.

19.

Patel

Jain

Kumar

, et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22(1): 121–128.

20.

Lefebvre

Noyon

Georgescu

, et al. Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for postoperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 448 patients. Support Care Cancer 2016; 24(3): 1397–1403.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB