Economic analysis: PICC versus short catheter for prolonged home antibiotic therapy.

Introduction: Hospital-at-home programs rely on vascular access devices for secure administration of parenteral antimicrobials. While guidelines recommend peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) for treatments ≥14 days, short peripheral catheters (SPC) are often used instead. Cost-effectiveness studies comparing these devices and their complications are limited. Objective: This study conducted an economic evaluation comparing PICC and SPC for patient outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. Materials and Methods: A literature review of catheter complication frequencies yielded 1053 papers, narrowed to 18 after independent peer review. Experts were consulted, and a list of items required for catheter use was compiled to determine costs. A decision tree model was developed based on complication frequencies and costs. Results were analyzed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), univariate sensitivity analysis (tornado diagram), and multivariate sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation). Results: Major complications were similar between devices, but minor complications were more frequent with SPC. The PICC reference case assumed 50%-50% radiologist/nurse insertion, catheter cost ($74,7), ≤15-day treatment, and complication prevalence. Higher costs associated with PICC were linked to catheter material and radiologist insertion. Multivariate analysis showed ICERs of $49,2 with 90% nurse-led insertion and $24,3 with 100% nurse-led insertions, assuming a 50% PICC price reduction. Discussion: PICC was more effective in reducing minor complications. Costs decreased with nurse-led insertions and lower catheter material costs. Conclusion: Increasing PICC use for extended treatments could reduce overall costs and lower ICERs, highlighting their potential economic advantage despite higher initial expenses.