Trial reportPloS one2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of bundled innovative devices versus standard approach in the prevention of unscheduled peripheral venous catheters removal due to complications in France.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03757143 (Skin Antisepsis With Chlorhexidine-Alcohol Versus Povidone Iodine-Alcohol, Combined or Not With Use of a Bundle of New Devices, for Prevention of Intravascular-catheter Colonization and Catheter Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Skin Antisepsis With Chlorhexidine-Alcohol Versus Povidone Iodine-Alcohol, Combined or Not With Use of a Bundle of New Devices, for Prevention of Intravascular-catheter Colonization and Catheter Failure: An Open Label, Single Center, Randomized Controlled, Two-by-two Factorial Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- An international randomised controlled trial of a novel antimicrobial dressing for peripheral intravenous catheters (ProP trial).Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Trial
- Procedural and Therapy Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Framework for Safety, Quality and Patient-Centred Care.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
- The practical effect of "standardized mode" in the construction of community venous catheter maintenance specialty nursing clinics.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of catheter dislodgement: prevalence, clinical impact, and innovations in securement devices.npj biomedical innovations · 2025Review
- Nationwide Burden and Hospital Costs of Surgical Site Complications in France: A Retrospective Analysis of the French National PMSI Administrative Database.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of bundled devices (BDs) versus standard devices (SDs) for the prevention of unscheduled peripheral venous catheter (PVC) removal due to complication from a French investigator-initiated, open-label, single center, randomized-controlled, two-by-two factorial trial (CLEAN-3 study). A 14-day time non homogeneous semi-markovian model was performed to be fitted to longitudinal individual patient data from CLEAN-3 database. This model includes five health states and eight transitional events; a base case scenario, two scenario analyses and bootstrap sensitivity analyses were performed. The cost-effectiveness criterion was the cost per patient with unscheduled PVC removal avoided. 989 adult (age≥18 years) patients were analyzed to compare the BDs group (494 patients), and the SDs group (495 patients). The assessed intervention was a combination of closed integrated catheters, positive displacement needleless-connectors, disinfecting caps, and single-use prefilled flush syringes compared with the use of open catheters and three-way stopcocks for treatment administration. For the base case scenario, an unscheduled 1st PVC removal before discharge was significantly more frequent in the SDs group (235 patients (47.5%) in the SDs group and 172 patients (34.8%) in the BDs group, p = 0.00006). After adjustment for 1st catheter time, the number of patients with unscheduled PVC removal per day was of 16 (95%CI: 15; 18) patients (out of 100) in the BDs group and of 26 (95%CI: 24; 28) patients (out of 100) in the SDs group. The mean cost per patient (adjusted on catheter-time) was of €144 (95%CI: €135-€154) for patients in the SDs group versus €102 (95%CI: €95-€109) for patients in the BDs group; the mean saving per patient was of €42 (95%CI: €32-€54). As a consequence, the assessed BDs strategy was less costly and more effective than the SDs strategy. Trail registration: CLEAN-3 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03757143.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.