{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027639329406434075, 'fraction_numerical': 0.032170367014046214, 'mean_word_length': 5.237288135593221, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PP326 Health Economic Value Of The Midline Catheter Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter In Korean Inpatient Setting

Introduction It is estimated that over 90 percent of hospitalized patients will receive some form of vascular access device (VAD) for their treatment. Currently, patients requiring medium-term catheterization often have peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placed, which are expensive, time consuming and usually for long-term catheterization. Midline catheters (MCs) are VADs placed in deep peripheral veins, with a dwell time of up to 29 days. The study aimed to evaluate if using MCs over PICCs has any clinical and economic benefits. Methods A cost-calculator was developed in Microsoft Excel 2013 to demonstrate the clinical and economic differences of using MCs over PICCs in an inpatient setting in Korea. A literature review was conducted and included eighteen studies that showed MCs have positive clinical, patient, economic, and institutional outcomes. The model captured clinical outcomes such as usage duration, complications, and costs. The time horizon was one year, and various model inputs were derived from the literature review. Results For an annual catheter utilization of MCs over PICCs, the total cost-saving was USD 3,764,994. Total treatment costs for MCs were USD 7,230,825 and for PICCs were USD 8,987,922. The total treatment costs included device cost, complication cost and labor cost related to using both MCs and PICCs. For MCs versus PICCs, device costs were USD 6,554,317 versus USD 6,563,356, complication costs were USD 106,749 versus USD 982,417, and labor costs were USD 569,759 versus USD 1,442,149. Conclusions In both the base and sensitivity analyses, results showed that MCs can be an impressive cost-saving option among patients with unnecessary PICC use in Korea. Among patients who require medium-term catheterization and use PICCs even when not targeted for central line insertion, MCs are a more cost-effective option, and MCs will benefit these patients with lesser complication rates. MCs are a suitable alternative with clinical and economic benefits that could lead to lower burden on patients and healthcare systems.