OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient s...OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient survey in 2 oncology centers in China were carried out to investigate the cost and impact of Port and PICC for patients. The cost at different time of intravenous administration was calculated and compared. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed and tornado graph was drawn. RESULTS: Direct cost of Port at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were7442, 8005, 8553, and 9131 CNY, and 4700, 9399, 14032, 18799 CNY for PICC respectively. Direct & indirect cost at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were 9291, 11704, 14101, 16529 CNY for Port and 9697, 19393, 29023, 38787 CNY for PICC. Sensitivity analysis showed that productivity loss and device maintenance cost were the most in?uential factors to the result. CONCLUSION: Port had higher cost in short term and less in long term compared with PICC. Patients expected to get intravenous administration more than 0.5 year should use Port if both direct and indirect costs were included.展开更多
文摘OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient survey in 2 oncology centers in China were carried out to investigate the cost and impact of Port and PICC for patients. The cost at different time of intravenous administration was calculated and compared. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed and tornado graph was drawn. RESULTS: Direct cost of Port at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were7442, 8005, 8553, and 9131 CNY, and 4700, 9399, 14032, 18799 CNY for PICC respectively. Direct & indirect cost at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were 9291, 11704, 14101, 16529 CNY for Port and 9697, 19393, 29023, 38787 CNY for PICC. Sensitivity analysis showed that productivity loss and device maintenance cost were the most in?uential factors to the result. CONCLUSION: Port had higher cost in short term and less in long term compared with PICC. Patients expected to get intravenous administration more than 0.5 year should use Port if both direct and indirect costs were included.
