Economic impact of Tegaderm chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) dressing in critically ill patients. Issue 5 (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thokala, Praveen; Arrowsmith, Martin; Poku, Edith; Martyn-St James, Marissa; Anderson, Jeff; Foster, Steve; Elliott, Tom; Whitehouse, Tony
• Is Part Of: Journal of infection prevention. Volume 17:Issue 5(2016:Sep.)
• Page Start: 216
• Page End: 223
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: Tegaderm chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) -- cost-effectiveness -- vascular access -- bloodstream infection -- catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) -- adult critical care -- cost model -- central venous catheter (CVC) -- arterial catheters -- chlorhexidine dressing; Hospital buildings -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Nosocomial infections -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cross infection -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 616.9045
• DOI: 10.1177/1757177416657162
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-1774

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the economic impact of a Tegaderm TM chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) gel dressing compared with a standard intravenous (i.v.) dressing (defined as non-antimicrobial transparent film dressing), used for insertion site care of short-term central venous and arterial catheters (intravascular catheters) in adult critical care patients using a cost-consequence model populated with data from published sources. Material and Methods: A decision analytical cost-consequence model was developed which assigned each patient with an indwelling intravascular catheter and a standard dressing, a baseline risk of associated dermatitis, local infection at the catheter insertion site and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), estimated from published secondary sources. The risks of these events for patients with a Tegaderm CHG were estimated by applying the effectiveness parameters from the clinical review to the baseline risks. Costs were accrued through costs of intervention (i.e. Tegaderm CHG or standard intravenous dressing) and hospital treatment costs depended on whether the patients had local dermatitis, local infection or CRBSI. Total costs were estimated as mean values of 10, 000 probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) runs. Results: Tegaderm CHG resulted in an average cost-saving of £77 per patient in an intensive care unit. Tegaderm CHG also has a 98.5% probability of being cost-saving compared to standard i.v. dressings. Conclusions: The analyses suggest that Tegaderm CHG is a cost-saving strategy to reduce CRBSI and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses.