Why the study?
What are the clinical and economic effects of using non-tunneled double lumen polyurethane central venous catheters in oncology patients?
What are the clinical and economic effects of using non-tunneled double lumen polyurethane central venous catheters in oncology patients?
The study highlights the need to carefully evaluate the clinical benefits and economic consequences of using polyurethane central venous catheters in oncology patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May warrant cautious device selection in oncology; leaves open the net clinical and economic effects pending higher-level evidence.
Central Venous Catheters (CVC) and ports are essential devices to the medical care of cancer patients. Every year about one million CVCs are inserted in cancer patients. The field of oncohematology is making a great contribution to the development of new models of catheters and to the use of innovative materials. New therapeutic protocols, based on continuous administration and higher doses of anticancer drugs with relative phlebitis problems, have raised the issue of long CVC in situ permanence. Different complications are related to the intravascular catheters such as those associated with insertion (pneumothorax, damages to arteries and nerves), or with the duration of catheterization (thrombosis and infections). Furthermore, Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections (CRBSI), in particular, cause significant mortality and excessive hospital costs. The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the costs related to the use of polyurethane (PU) CVC. 44 patients with a non tunneled double lumen PU CVC in place were followed for 6 months, and for each patient, time of permanence, possible antibiotic prophylaxis, blood parameters, adverse events and medical treatments were monitored. Our results suggest that physicians should pay greater attention to the correlation between new medical devices and the real benefit for the patient, and economic consequences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Console et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: