A case-control comparison of durability and cost between implanted reservoir and percutaneous catheters in cancer patients

David McCready, Ralph Broadwater, Merrick Ross, Raphael Pollock, David Ota, Charles M. Balch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A case-control study was performed to compare the durability and cost of implanted reservoir catheter systems with percutaneous central venous catheters. Twenty cancer patients had reservoir systems placed in 1985 for chemotherapy delivery. The control group consisted of 60 cancer patients, matched according to age, sex, and diagnosis who were part of a group of more than 700 patients with percutaneous catheters inserted during the same period. The reservoir catheters were found to function for a significantly (P <0.0001) longer time (495 ± 54 days) compared to the percutaneous catheters (197 ± 22 days). The total cost for each system was calculated by adding the charges for an average insertion (reservoir = $1738, percutaneous = $562) to the maintenance charges accumulated over the catheters' lifespan. Reservoir catheters were associated with a significantly greater total cost than percutaneous catheters ($2233 ± 54, $1453 ± 102, respectively) but, if the total cost was spread out over the life-span of the catheter by dividing the total cost by duration of use, reservoir catheters can be less expensive on a per diem basis. The break point occurs at approximately 6 months. For use less than 6 months, percutaneous catheters are cheaper primarily because of their lower insertion costs, but, for longer periods, reservoir catheters become cheaper because of lower maintenance costs and because a second percutaneous catheterization would likely be necessary.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)377-381
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Surgical Research
Volume51
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Catheters
Costs and Cost Analysis
Neoplasms
Maintenance
Central Venous Catheters
Catheterization
Case-Control Studies
Drug Therapy
Control Groups

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

A case-control comparison of durability and cost between implanted reservoir and percutaneous catheters in cancer patients. / McCready, David; Broadwater, Ralph; Ross, Merrick; Pollock, Raphael; Ota, David; Balch, Charles M.

In: Journal of Surgical Research, Vol. 51, No. 5, 1991, p. 377-381.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McCready, David ; Broadwater, Ralph ; Ross, Merrick ; Pollock, Raphael ; Ota, David ; Balch, Charles M. / A case-control comparison of durability and cost between implanted reservoir and percutaneous catheters in cancer patients. In: Journal of Surgical Research. 1991 ; Vol. 51, No. 5. pp. 377-381.
@article{6506d4e57ba34b3c998832d3ce97a2e2,
title = "A case-control comparison of durability and cost between implanted reservoir and percutaneous catheters in cancer patients",
abstract = "A case-control study was performed to compare the durability and cost of implanted reservoir catheter systems with percutaneous central venous catheters. Twenty cancer patients had reservoir systems placed in 1985 for chemotherapy delivery. The control group consisted of 60 cancer patients, matched according to age, sex, and diagnosis who were part of a group of more than 700 patients with percutaneous catheters inserted during the same period. The reservoir catheters were found to function for a significantly (P <0.0001) longer time (495 ± 54 days) compared to the percutaneous catheters (197 ± 22 days). The total cost for each system was calculated by adding the charges for an average insertion (reservoir = $1738, percutaneous = $562) to the maintenance charges accumulated over the catheters' lifespan. Reservoir catheters were associated with a significantly greater total cost than percutaneous catheters ($2233 ± 54, $1453 ± 102, respectively) but, if the total cost was spread out over the life-span of the catheter by dividing the total cost by duration of use, reservoir catheters can be less expensive on a per diem basis. The break point occurs at approximately 6 months. For use less than 6 months, percutaneous catheters are cheaper primarily because of their lower insertion costs, but, for longer periods, reservoir catheters become cheaper because of lower maintenance costs and because a second percutaneous catheterization would likely be necessary.",
author = "David McCready and Ralph Broadwater and Merrick Ross and Raphael Pollock and David Ota and Balch, {Charles M.}",
year = "1991",
doi = "10.1016/0022-4804(91)90137-B",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "377--381",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Research",
issn = "0022-4804",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A case-control comparison of durability and cost between implanted reservoir and percutaneous catheters in cancer patients

AU - McCready, David

AU - Broadwater, Ralph

AU - Ross, Merrick

AU - Pollock, Raphael

AU - Ota, David

AU - Balch, Charles M.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - A case-control study was performed to compare the durability and cost of implanted reservoir catheter systems with percutaneous central venous catheters. Twenty cancer patients had reservoir systems placed in 1985 for chemotherapy delivery. The control group consisted of 60 cancer patients, matched according to age, sex, and diagnosis who were part of a group of more than 700 patients with percutaneous catheters inserted during the same period. The reservoir catheters were found to function for a significantly (P <0.0001) longer time (495 ± 54 days) compared to the percutaneous catheters (197 ± 22 days). The total cost for each system was calculated by adding the charges for an average insertion (reservoir = $1738, percutaneous = $562) to the maintenance charges accumulated over the catheters' lifespan. Reservoir catheters were associated with a significantly greater total cost than percutaneous catheters ($2233 ± 54, $1453 ± 102, respectively) but, if the total cost was spread out over the life-span of the catheter by dividing the total cost by duration of use, reservoir catheters can be less expensive on a per diem basis. The break point occurs at approximately 6 months. For use less than 6 months, percutaneous catheters are cheaper primarily because of their lower insertion costs, but, for longer periods, reservoir catheters become cheaper because of lower maintenance costs and because a second percutaneous catheterization would likely be necessary.

AB - A case-control study was performed to compare the durability and cost of implanted reservoir catheter systems with percutaneous central venous catheters. Twenty cancer patients had reservoir systems placed in 1985 for chemotherapy delivery. The control group consisted of 60 cancer patients, matched according to age, sex, and diagnosis who were part of a group of more than 700 patients with percutaneous catheters inserted during the same period. The reservoir catheters were found to function for a significantly (P <0.0001) longer time (495 ± 54 days) compared to the percutaneous catheters (197 ± 22 days). The total cost for each system was calculated by adding the charges for an average insertion (reservoir = $1738, percutaneous = $562) to the maintenance charges accumulated over the catheters' lifespan. Reservoir catheters were associated with a significantly greater total cost than percutaneous catheters ($2233 ± 54, $1453 ± 102, respectively) but, if the total cost was spread out over the life-span of the catheter by dividing the total cost by duration of use, reservoir catheters can be less expensive on a per diem basis. The break point occurs at approximately 6 months. For use less than 6 months, percutaneous catheters are cheaper primarily because of their lower insertion costs, but, for longer periods, reservoir catheters become cheaper because of lower maintenance costs and because a second percutaneous catheterization would likely be necessary.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025993458&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025993458&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0022-4804(91)90137-B

DO - 10.1016/0022-4804(91)90137-B

M3 - Article

C2 - 1758171

AN - SCOPUS:0025993458

VL - 51

SP - 377

EP - 381

JO - Journal of Surgical Research

JF - Journal of Surgical Research

SN - 0022-4804

IS - 5

ER -