Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units

PLoS One. 2015 Jun 18;10(6):e0130439. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130439. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

Objective: To model the cost-effectiveness impact of routine use of an antimicrobial chlorhexidine gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings for the protection of central vascular lines in intensive care unit patients.

Design: This study uses a novel health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing versus transparent dressings in a French intensive care unit scenario. The 30-day time non-homogeneous markovian model comprises eight health states. The probabilities of events derive from a multicentre (12 French intensive care units) randomized controlled trial. 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations of 1,000 patients per dressing strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The outcome is the number of catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a recent French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient is also estimated.

Patients: 1000 patients per group simulated based on the source randomized controlled trial involving 1,879 adults expected to require intravascular catheterization for 48 hours.

Intervention: Chlorhexidine Gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings.

Results: The chlorhexidine gluconate dressing prevents 11.8 infections /1,000 patients (95% confidence interval: [3.85; 19.64]) with a number needed to treat of 85 patients. The mean cost difference per patient of €141 is not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: [€-975; €1,258]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is of €12,046 per catheter-related bloodstream infection prevented, and the incremental net monetary benefit per patient is of €344.88.

Conclusions: According to the base case scenario, the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing is more cost-effective than the reference dressing.

Trial registration: This model is based on the data from the RCT registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01189682).

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Anti-Infective Agents, Local / economics
  • Anti-Infective Agents, Local / therapeutic use*
  • Bandages / economics*
  • Catheter-Related Infections / economics*
  • Catheter-Related Infections / epidemiology
  • Catheter-Related Infections / prevention & control*
  • Chlorhexidine / analogs & derivatives*
  • Chlorhexidine / economics
  • Chlorhexidine / therapeutic use
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Intensive Care Units / economics*
  • Male
  • Markov Chains
  • Middle Aged
  • Probability
  • Vascular Access Devices / economics
  • Vascular Access Devices / microbiology*

Substances

  • Anti-Infective Agents, Local
  • chlorhexidine gluconate
  • Chlorhexidine

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT01189682

Grants and funding

This study was funded by 3M Company FM, http://solutions.3mdeutschland.de/wps/portal/3M/de_DE/EU2/Country/. MPS and SFB had a role in preparation of the manuscript.